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?)...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
... 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?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @TaxJusticeNet
If we're using a definition you're a woman if you really feel like a woman, whatever that means to you, does the question "how do I know if I've got it?" make sense? You tell me, do you feel like a woman? I guess: yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I can't pretend to understand what it's like to be born in a male body and really feel like that's the wrong gender but I believe it's a real thing that should be respected not shat on on grounds of your preferences regarding analytical categories.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarterPaddy @TaxJusticeNet
Empathy is good. Also for women in prison who have been victim of sexual assault whose PTSD is set off if male prisoners housed w them. For female students who lose out on athletic scholarship because male bodies run faster...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
... For muslim woman who can't use women only swim if ppl w male bodies also there. For young lesbians being told their sexual orientation is bigoted & to get over not wanting male partners. I agree gender dysphoria is real, but so are impacts on women if gender id overrides sex
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @TaxJusticeNet
I don’t know why you are rehearsing these arguments with me. I haven’t expressed a smidgen of disagreement with them. I have asked what practical difference to the feminist cause, away from these edge cases you mention, in fields of education, tax etc., adopting option B makes.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarterPaddy @TaxJusticeNet
Because (as I understand it) the argument you are making for Option B (let's fudge the clear category of sex and call it gender identity) is one of compassion to individuals with personal vulnerabilities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @TaxJusticeNet
It’s not a fudge, it’s a different choice. The fact that compassion also suggest e.g. women with PSTD in a shelter shouldn’t be forced to share it with a male, is completely consistent with everything I’ve written.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No it's a fudge. If you fill in an official form or provide data about your *sex*, and the people using that data interpret that as your *gender identity* they are fudging two different concepts.
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @TaxJusticeNet
We could, if we chose, equate the concept of woman/man with self identified gender not sex, and make that clear on forms. I very familiar with your objections to that choice. I share some of them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy @TaxJusticeNet
Well no we couldn't, because non-binary gender identities are valid. If the options are Male or Female then the question is asking about sex. If the options are open ended then it is gender identity. If the data was collected about sex we should not assume it is gender identity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
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.