I am not a biologist

[Aggie1]

1 hour ago, Britney Summers said:

It isn't a gotcha. This is purely toxic political correctness and wokeness as why it can't be answered.  As a biological male, I can not become a biological female.  I'd love to transition, but I will always be stuck as a biological male. Why are people so put off by the obvious? 

Decouple the identity politics and wokeness, as that is why the backlash is gaining traction. 

I guess that’s why it’s important to get the message out about the difference between sex (biological male), gender identity and gender expression. It’s multidimensional and multifaceted and the trap happens when debaters switch terms on you. The negative side effect of creating too narrow a definition for woman is to exclude large segments of the female population. The definition of man was too restrictive at one time and treated absolutely literally to exclude women. The irony in that was that there were a great deal of men who couldn’t match the restrictive definitions but were often given a pass and preference over more qualified women. We now include women within the general definition. We may be seeing a culture shift happening where men are now being included more broadly in the definition of woman, and we are seeing the same backlash from some groups, both men and women, that we saw from the old boys club who wanted to protect their privilege. There was a big brouhaha when female reporters fought for access to mens locker rooms. There was a battle royale over women in combat. In the end society is better served when barriers are removed. This has proven true when women have gained admittance to traditionally male spheres. The same thing is happening in the LGBTQ community. Barriers are being broken every day.  I think the same will be true with broader societal acceptance of transgenderism.

[Artpetal]

She gave a very lukewarm answer when the appropriate answer would have been "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman." 

[Aggie1]

4 minutes ago, Artpetal said:

She gave a very lukewarm answer when the appropriate answer would have been "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman." 

Not sure about that. That might have been tagged as legislating from the bench.

[KathyLauren]

6 minutes ago, Artpetal said:

She gave a very lukewarm answer when the appropriate answer would have been "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman." 

 

Even that would have been seen as bias.  Knowing that, with all the anti-trans legislation being proposed, these issues will eventually be tried before the Supreme Court, she was right to offer no opinion.

[Vidanjali]

5 minutes ago, Artpetal said:

She gave a very lukewarm answer when the appropriate answer would have been "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman." 

 

...perhaps better qualifiers - "I don't know, I'm not a sociologist/anthropologist/genderstudiesmajor/etc...", or "I don't know, I'm only one of many women." But, ultimately I agree that "I don't know" along with her explanation of her role as a judge was an appropriate response. 

[Heather Nicole]

On 4/11/2022 at 11:29 PM, Aggie1 said:

In my talk I will be making reference to The Gene by Dr Sid Mukherjee. He talks about the genetic underpinnings of sex, master gene regulation switched off defaulting to female expression, epigenetic regulation of genes based on environmental triggers, that sort of thing. The book is copyright 2016 and I’m sure a lot has advanced since then. What would you recommend I read to get caught up? Don’t forget, I am not a biologist! 

 

This article touches on a lot of related things. It's from 2015, but maybe it might at least provide some leads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

On the topic of gender being a social construct and "What is a woman?", I found this video to provide very good coverage of the matter:

 

[VickySGV]

After just reading a scientific article on "biological" maleness and femaleness even that one is fraught with controversy.  There are documented XX individuals with full male genitalia and sperm, and likewise Xy individuals who have ova and have had multiple pregnancies and children in-utero.  Throw in some other chromosomal variation, and even those terms become cloudy.  Our biggest problem is that conservative minded people want simple, absolute answers that do not vary from their early learning.  Science minded people however present changing answers, often in quick succession and accept the changing world view but are therefor seem as unreliable in their thinking to those who cannot process the new discoveries without fear and denial of the validity of the emerging information gained 5 senses at a time.

[Aggie1]

2 hours ago, Heather Nicole said:

 

This article touches on a lot of related things. It's from 2015, but maybe it might at least provide some leads:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

On the topic of gender being a social construct and "What is a woman?", I found this video to provide very good coverage of the matter:

 

ah, Abi Thorn. I subscribe to her YouTube channel. Philosophy Tube. Quite thought provoking. I am not a philosopher but I can follow the logic. I remember listening to social constructs and being impressed. I need to take another listen.
 

The conclusion of the scientific American article lines up with the general consensus on this forum… if you want to know if someone is male or female, just ask them. You don’t have to be a biologist to understand the answer.

 

So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.
 

 

[Carolyn Marie]

Maybe trans folk should start carrying around a copy of their brain scans.  😜

 

Carolyn Marie

[Susan R]

9 hours ago, Aggie1 said:

So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash?

Great point! Look at the huge variation of hormone levels between some males and some females. For example, some CIS women have higher T than some CIS males. So does it make sense to base it on any one visual parameter?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Susan R said:

Great point! Look at the huge variation of hormone levels between some males and some females. For example, some CIS women have higher T than some CIS males. So does it make sense to base it on any one visual parameter?

Sometimes I wonder if the best answer is no answer at all. There is an assumption that there is a biological basis for everything, and while I am a believer in science, I also marvel at the reality of what makes us "us" is unique to each and everyone of us. If it were simply a matter of duplicating or cloning an individual, we might see the exact same, however, it just does not work that way. If there was truly a singular biological basis for male vs. female, would simple hormone manipulation make us "all better", and if so, would we want to be what some would claim to be either normal, or better? 

 

I know some will believe in the concept of the soul and some will not. I like to believe that many of us who participate in these forums have female souls. I could care less about the biological point of view at this point in life. Since I started this journey of transition, I have never been happier. I actually love who I am rather than dreading being who I was since I was 5 years old. I suspect there are others that feel the same way I do.

 

We face an uncertain future as the conservatives have decided that it is open season on LGBTQ individuals. We just need to strengthen ourselves and no get sucked in by their rhetoric. I believe there are a lot of people who really do understand us, and realize that we are decent human beings. I am reminded of a saying someone sent me from Dr. Seuss “The people who mind DON'T matter, and the people who matter don’t mind!”-Dr. Seuss.

 

-Katie

[Britney Summers]

On 4/15/2022 at 12:07 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

 

I disagree, Britney.  It wasn't meant to be an honest question; if it had to do with a potential case before the SCOTUS, it would not have been proper for her to answer it.  If it wasn't about a potential case, there was no reason it should have been asked.  It was meant to trap her into an answer that the R's could use in political ads and stump speeches, and she was right not to answer.

 

They didn't ask her about biology; none of us here believes we transition to become biological males or females.  It was all about scoring points.  It is not "politically correct" to point out that what makes a person a woman is not about only biology.  It is more complicated than that, and you know it.  Jackson was not going to walk knowingly into that minefield.

 

Carolyn Marie

You can disagree all you want, the question is perfect. If a person can't answer it correctly, than they don't belong on the supreme court.

The Orwellian type of things going on, like newspeak and double think.

 

[Britney Summers]

I can agree that there is a difference between sex and gender identity.

The question that was asked, the terms were not switched. The one doing the term switching is Ketanji Brown. 

Ironically she admits she is a woman,. and admits several others are too. Why does she all of a sudden know, when she used the excuse "i'm not a biologist" the first time?  Did she become a biologist in a day? Talk about term switching.  I'm done here, this is nothing but woke insanity. LOL

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2645797/Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-tells-Ted-Cruz-know-woman.html

 

 

On 4/15/2022 at 12:25 PM, Aggie1 said:

I guess that’s why it’s important to get the message out about the difference between sex (biological male), gender identity and gender expression. It’s multidimensional and multifaceted and the trap happens when debaters switch terms on you.

On 4/15/2022 at 12:25 PM, Aggie1 said:

I

Quote

On 4/15/2022 at 12:25 PM, Aggie1 said:

I guess that’s why it’s important to get the message out about the difference between sex (biological male), gender identity and gender expression. It’s multidimensional and multifaceted and the trap happens when debaters switch terms on you. The negative side effect of creating too narrow a definition for woman is to exclude large segments of the female population. The definition of man was too restrictive at one time and treated absolutely literally to exclude women. The irony in that was that there were a great deal of men who couldn’t match the restrictive definitions but were often given a pass and preference over more qualified women. We now include women within the general definition. We may be seeing a culture shift happening where men are now being included more broadly in the definition of woman, and we are seeing the same backlash from some groups, both men and women, that we saw from the old boys club who wanted to protect their privilege. There was a big brouhaha when female reporters fought for access to mens locker rooms. There was a battle royale over women in combat. In the end society is better served when barriers are removed. This has proven true when women have gained admittance to traditionally male spheres. The same thing is happening in the LGBTQ community. Barriers are being broken every day.  I think the same will be true with broader societal acceptance of transgenderism.

 

The negative side effect of creating too narrow a definition for woman is to exclude large segments of the female population. The definition of man was too restrictive at one time and treated absolutely literally to exclude women. The irony in that was that there were a great deal of men who couldn’t match the restrictive definitions but were often given a pass and preference over more qualified women. We now include women within the general definition. We may be seeing a culture shift happening where men are now being included more broadly in the definition of woman, and we are seeing the same backlash from some groups, both men and women, that we saw from the old boys club who wanted to protect their privilege. There was a big brouhaha when female reporters fought for access to mens locker rooms. There was a battle royale over women in combat. In the end society is better served when barriers are removed. This has proven true when women have gained admittance to traditionally male spheres. The same thing is happening in the LGBTQ community. Barriers are being broken every day.  I think the same will be true with broader societal acceptance of transgenderism.