What is a woman?

[brenthutch 444]

I say an adult female human.  What say you?

[metalslug 36]

Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...

[brenthutch 444]

12 hours ago, metalslug said:

Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by brenthutch

[Bigfalls 111]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I say an adult female human.  What say you?

XX

[billvon 2,991]

13 hours ago, metalslug said:

Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological)

Sex is biological.  Gender is societal.  Not that hard.

[brenthutch 444]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sex is biological.  Gender is societal.  Not that hard.

Tell that to Ketanji Brown Jackson, she has a different opinion.

[riggerrob 643]

This debate is raging in high-level sports.

Should trans-sexuals be allowed to compete as women?

I say NO!

They enjoyed a huge advantage during puberty when the excess testosterone helped them grow more muscle mass and grow taller.

I say that trans-sexuals should compete in an "open" division, while traditional females compete in a "womens' only" division. We still need a "mens' division" in there somewhere.

If a traditional woman scores higher than traditional men, then that should encourage the boys to train harder. Humpf!

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, riggerrob said:

This debate is raging in high-level sports.

Should trans-sexuals be allowed to compete as women?

I say NO!

They enjoyed a huge advantage during puberty when the excess testosterone helped them grow more muscle mass and grow taller.

I say that trans-sexuals should compete in an "open" division, while traditional females compete in a "womens' only" division. We still need a "mens' division" in there somewhere.

If a traditional woman scores higher than traditional men, then that should encourage the boys to train harder. Humpf!

We should be both proud and grateful that our sport allows all sexes and genders to compete against each other on an equal basis. How cool is that?

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Sex is biological.  Gender is societal.  Not that hard.

Here is a picture of my five legged dog, I consider his tail to actually be a fifth leg.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Here is a picture of my five legged dog, I consider his tail to actually be a fifth leg.

I count six. No surprise you don't have a female dog.

[Phil1111 1,149]

All sporting organizations have the common sense to deal with these issues.

Only republicans who continually need to alienate, segregate and divide. Feel this is an issue that requires legislation. Instead of leaving it up to sporting organizations.

Congratulations Brent. Defining neanderthal thinking since 40,000 B.C.

[kallend 2,027]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We should be both proud and grateful that our sport allows all sexes and genders to compete against each other on an equal basis. How cool is that?

Very cool, but aren't there still  women's only events at the FAI Mondial?  Certainly there are in 4-way and speed skydiving. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

5 minutes ago, kallend said:

Very cool, but aren't there still  women's only events at the FAI Mondial?  Certainly there are in 4-way and speed skydiving. 

Sure, and that's perfectly cool with me, too. As I think about it, I believe I was on a women's way of some kind back when and it was not a problem. Good thing the memory is failing, I reckon.

[airdvr 210]

But is it cool with you if a guy wants to compete in the women's events?

[gowlerk 2,193]

9 minutes ago, airdvr said:

But is it cool with you if a guy wants to compete in the women's events?

That would be an offense against man and nature right there wouldn't it?

[airdvr 210]

Just now, gowlerk said:

That would be an offense against man and nature right there wouldn't it?

Well...I'd like to be around the bonfire for that conversation.

[mistercwood 287]

3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Should trans-sexuals be allowed to compete as women?

I say NO!

They enjoyed a huge advantage during puberty when the excess testosterone helped them grow more muscle mass and grow taller.

This is the same verbatim argument being made in discussion forums everywhere, and highlights the black and white assumptions being made by those arguing against trans people in any sport - that a larger frame is always advantageous, and that the participant always went through a full biological male puberty.

And those assumptions are wrong.

A trans-woman who had puberty-blockers before transitioning, gets none of those testosterone-based growth advantages. That the examples making headlines are about people who've transitioned later, should not cause us to ignore the available variables here when making policy. If a trans-woman never had that growth advantage, on what basis now do we exclude her from participating in women's sports (if she chooses)?

Second assumption - the outrage is almost always aimed at competitors in sports events where strength dominates. But what about where a large frame that no longer has its original supporting muscle mass is now a hinderance? In a gymnastics floor routine, a trans-woman who went through full puberty first is going to have a much, much harder time getting height off the floor - her frame is now a liability, not an advantage.

This is a difficult problem, but not an unsolvable one. Anyone who thinks the answer is black and white though is being lazy.

[wmw999 2,447]

Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological

I had a friend who was born intersex (both sets). Her parents decided they wanted a boy, so that’s what the surgery left behind. But she said she never, ever, felt like a man, even back when that was ridiculous and unacceptable. So to make herself into one, she joined the army and became a Ranger. Career, decorated, invalided in the long run because of battle-incurred injuries and agent orange.

She sired children. After going back to school for a master’s and teaching college a few years, she couldn’t take it, and went for transition surgery. A lifetime of living honestly as a man wasn’t enough. Enough testosterone to sire children wasn’t enough. Because her birth certificate had the word “intersex” on it, the Army paid for her transition surgery.

Her status is why the legal question is different from the biological one. And there are plenty like her. Not all intersex, but all just knowing something is wrong.

How dare you assume you understand her situation in ways she doesn’t. I doubt she would judge your decision to remain male  

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

51 minutes ago, airdvr said:

But is it cool with you if a guy wants to compete in the women's events?

I am. Now medaling in competition against women who spent their lives training hard and sacrificing much for the opportunity, and what it might confer, is a different thing. We're dancing around Lia Thomas here so let's just put a name to it. It seems to me that if we are going to have sex specific sports and competitions then a persons biologic sex should be the only determinant at this juncture. But that is only because we haven't truly faced the issues and thought through the ways to ensure fairness to all participants without discriminating against others. We have work to do there, no doubt.

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Sex is biological.  Gender is societal.  Not tha

42 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological

I had a friend who was born intersex (both sets). Her parents decided they wanted a boy, so that’s what the surgery left behind. But she said she never, ever, felt like a man, even back when that was ridiculous and unacceptable. So to make herself into one, she joined the army and became a Ranger. Career, decorated, invalided in the long run because of battle-incurred injuries and agent orange.

She sired children. After going back to school for a master’s and teaching college a few years, she couldn’t take it, and went for transition surgery. A lifetime of loving honestly as a man wasn’t enough. Enough testosterone to sire children wasn’t enough. Because her birth certificate had the word “intersex” on it, the Army paid for her transition surgery.

Her status is why the legal question is different from the biological one. And there are plenty like her. Not all intersex, but all just knowing something is wrong.

How dare you assume you understand her situation in ways she doesn’t. I doubt she would judge your decision to remain male  

Wendy P. 

 

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Only republicans who continually need to alienate, segregate and divide. 

No that would be Democrats with their despicable identity politics. 

[metalslug 36]

25 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Bill is dead right; the legal definition of gender, where it matters, is not necessarily the same as the biological.

And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. 

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

..but all just knowing something is wrong.

Absurd sporting outcomes by trans participants , non-transitioned men using women's public facilities.  'knowing that something is wrong' does not only apply in the context that you've used it.

I would agree that it doesn't seem fair to permanently deny such participants the ability to ever compete in sports again and there may yet be a method to include these participants fairly, it's just not happening reliably enough yet.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, metalslug said:

And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. 

Come on, man, a hearing for a Supreme Court Justice isn't about getting the job it's about not getting the job. I'll bet even I could avoid saying fuck or PA-ing Brent for two days under those circumstances.

[billvon 2,991]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. 

Nope.  She was asked for a definition of "woman."  

Were they asking for "woman" as defined by the gender "female?"  Then it's a question of societal definitions.  We are fortunate that we have progressed to the stage where the person, rather than society, has more say in what they decide their gender is.  Which means that the person being asked, not the person doing the asking, gets to answer.

Is it "woman" as in genetics?  Then that's straightforward.  XX is female, XY is male.

Is it "woman" as in phenotype?  (That means 'what they look like.')  Then it's a little harder.  Many people are born intersex, and are effectively defined as one or the other by surgery.

Is it "woman" as in a combination of both?  Then it's even more complicated.  What about a woman who is born with a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, but is genetically XY?  Are they a woman or a man?  A doctor (or biologist) is going to have an opinion on that - and they may even disagree.

As a judge, she would be remiss if she just assumed one or the other without knowing all the above.  Good for her for not giving the easy (and potentially) wrong answer.

As a simile, consider three witnesses in a court case.  They are all asked if they saw a woman at the scene of the crime.  Witness 1 says "yes,"  Witness 2 says "I saw someone who looked like a woman."  Witness 3 said "I saw the back of someone with long brown hair wearing a blue dress."  Justice is most likely served when person 3 testifies.

[metalslug 36]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Nope.  She was asked for a definition of "woman."  

As a judge, she would be remiss if she just assumed one or the other without knowing all the above.  Good for her for not giving the easy (and potentially) wrong answer.

Utter nonsense and deflection. This was a questioning for a judicial position, she was quite logically being asked her legal opinion on a legal definition and did not offer any definition at all, other than to assert that only a biologist could possibly provide a definition. There's no amount of woke spin you can put on that.

4 hours ago, billvon said:

As a simile, consider three witnesses in a court case.  They are all asked if they saw a woman at the scene of the crime.  Witness 1 says "yes,"  Witness 2 says "I saw someone who looked like a woman."  Witness 3 said "I saw the back of someone with long brown hair wearing a blue dress."  Justice is most likely served when person 3 testifies.

Nope. Witness #3 would be the most useless as they had the worst view, from behind. The witness with the best view gets the higher regard. Did they all see a man in drag? It's not the witnesses' obligation to make that determination, the courts and the investigators do. They should hope their presiding judge knows what a woman or a man is.

Edited March 27, 2022 by metalslug