U.K. Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Can’t Be Defined as Women

[Master Debator]

Sex is binary

Great claim. Now describe how binary accounts for people who produce semen, people who produce ova, people who produce none and people who produce both. Do you know what binary means?

 

[Aristaeus]

Binary precludes variation. It means two. That's it. Bimodal is where you get variation between the two poles.

Intersex males and females depending on which of the poles they are closer to.

Yes, and there are two sexes, hence binary. Of course there is variation within the sexes.

Intersex isn't a sex. It is a non-medical term that covers a range of sexual development conditions.

A man with Klinefelter Syndrome has an 'intersex' condition, but is male.

• Sex is often described as a binary system, with male and female as the two main categories.
  
  
• However, some research suggests that certain sex-related traits, like hormone levels or physical characteristics, may follow a bimodal distribution, meaning they cluster around two averages, one for males and one for females.
  
  
• This bimodal distribution within sex traits doesn't mean there are more than two sexes, but rather that those traits vary within the two sex categories.

 

[Master Debator]

Yes, and there are two sexes, hence binary. Of course there is variation within the sexes.

Intersex isn't a sex. It is a non-medical term that covers a range of sexual development conditions.

A man with Klinefelter Syndrome has an 'intersex' condition, but is male.

• Sex is often described as a binary system, with male and female as the two main categories.
  
  
• However, some research suggests that certain sex-related traits, like hormone levels or physical characteristics, may follow a bimodal distribution, meaning they cluster around two averages, one for males and one for females.
  
  
• This bimodal distribution within sex traits doesn't mean there are more than two sexes, but rather that those traits vary within the two sex categories.

Did you bother to read the thing you just posted? It agrees with me.

 

[Aristaeus]

Did you bother to read the thing you just posted? It agrees with me.

Well obviously sex-traits are bimodal, no one is suggesting otherwise, but sex is binary because there are just two sexes. If you disagree, then what is the third sex?

 

[Master Debator]

Well obviously sex-traits are bimodal, no one is suggesting otherwise, but sex is binary because there are just two sexes. If you disagree, then what is the third sex?

If sex traits are bimodal then how is sex binary? How are you defining sex? And I don't need to keep addressing your strawman. I did so once already. Why do you keep presenting it like it will stop being a strawman?

 

[KevinKohler]

Great claim. Now describe how binary accounts for people who produce semen, people who produce ova, people who produce none and people who produce both. Do you know what binary means?

Perfect.

Then only those who produce neither or both get exemption from this ruling.

That's, what, about.....


.000000009001% of the population?

 

[Master Debator]

Perfect.

Then only those who produce neither or both get exemption from this ruling.

That's, what, about.....


.000000009001% of the population?

Exception to whos ruling? I think that phrasing reveals the intentionality in classification.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can explain that and am happy to if someone is confused by it. Why can't you explain the rationale behind any of your arguments? Why are you only capable of claims?

Your only explanation is that "objective" means what you want it to mean. I have already explained my rationale and you cannot accept it, so you're sealioning.

Why? What do the feelings of society have to do with objectivity?

I didn't say society had feelings. It's assessing whether or not Semenya's feelings have any special significance to the way society determines such social matters as "fairness in sports."

No I'm not. I'm not talking about rules or exceptions at all, you are. I'm talking about describing things accurately. Like I said in the other thread, if there are exceptions to your rules on gravity then your theory or understanding of gravity is incomplete. You're talking about rules made by people and I'm talking about describing nature and the natural world and how it actually works.

Then why do you argue that Semenya's feelings trump her physical biology?

And still the things they use to communicate are called words.

And your attempt to conflate jargon with the demotic use of words remains fallacious.

You claimed that the question is how. How does one thing become more objective than another. What the **** does that even mean. From my understanding of objectivity that sentence makes absolutely no sense. The moon isn't more objective than the sun. For something to be objective it just means it exists in reality without influence of your feelings. Laws exist but they are subjective in that they come from the sentiments of people. They exist subjectively. The moon exists but it doesn't matter how you feel about it or whether people are here to feel any way about it at all. Is existence isn't tied to human sentiment. It exists objectively. So how does one thing that exists objectively exist more objectively than any other?

No, laws are not purely subjective because without them societies cannot survive. A theoretical independent observer of all human societies would see that as being as objective as the composition of the moon. You may not like the laws of this or that society, but your personal feelings do not overrule the objective fact that societies need laws to survive. Champions of trans ideology are not just randomly throwing out their feelings any more than anti-trans; both parties want to make the agendas based on their feelings part of established law. The need for a law that determines whether or not trans competition in sports is lawful is something both sides agree on, and they both present reasons for their agendas based on both subjective and objective arguments.

Why? What's the explanation guy? I just explained the difference between the objective and subjective to you. You just say shit and make a claim but never the thing that's supposed to support your claims.

Your bs argument remains massively flawed, as I've shown above.

Your explanation doesn't help your argument. Insurance companies are a poor bellwether of objectivity.

The insurance companies were not the source of the objective observations. Patients who claimed that their pain was alleviated by acupuncture would have been the logical source for the companies' decision to grant limited validation of the pain-relief technique. The companies didn't validate the technique out of the goodness of their hearts or out of scientific curiosity; they overruled the earlier paradigm from materialistic science-- nothing is going on with acupuncture because we can't show the process-- because patients kept stumping for it and insurance companies wanted to attract more customers.

 

[Master Debator]

Your only explanation is that "objective" means what you want it to mean. I have already explained my rationale and you cannot accept it, so you're sealioning.

Nope. That's not what I said. I've given my explanation for what objective means to me and I'll give it again if you need me to, you havent, nor have you attempted to explain what it means in regards to your argument. I have no idea what objective means to you given your description of it so I'm asking for it. I recognize that people may have different definitions of things, maybe we're just using the word differently, that's entirely possible.

I didn't say society had feelings. It's assessing whether or not Semenya's feelings have any special significance to the way society determines such social matters as "fairness in sports."

What? Any significance to society, sounds to me like a reflection of societies feelings. This begs the question what you mean by significance.

Then why do you argue that Semenya's feelings trump her physical biology?

I don't know what trump is in reference to. I said no such thing and argued no such thing. Her doctor isnt unaware of her biology and still classified her as a female when she was born. The point there is that objective biology doesn't make for objective classification.

And your attempt to conflate jargon with the demotic use of words remains fallacious.

What jargon are you accusing me of conflating specifically?

No, laws are not purely subjective because without them societies cannot survive.

That doesn't mean they aren't subjective. Not everyone wants every society to survive. I'm not interested in the survival of slaver societies for instance.

A theoretical independent observer of all human societies would see that as being as objective as the composition of the moon.

What's objective is that socities have rules. Objectivity doesn't make any judgements about the rules themselves. It's basically a type of tautological statement because a society is itself an group of people organized around a particular set of values and/or goals. You can't have organization without rules. That doesn't make any societies particular rules objective. The rules each society lives by are still a reflection of the sentiments of the people in that society.

You may not like the laws of this or that society, but your personal feelings do not overrule the objective fact that societies need laws to survive.

So what? Who was arguing that rules themselves aren't a necessary compenent to organization and society? I wasn't.

Champions of trans ideology are not just randomly throwing out their feelings any more than anti-trans; both parties want to make the agendas based on their feelings part of established law.

The need for a law that determines whether or not trans competition in sports is lawful is something both sides agree on, and they both present reasons for their agendas based on both subjective and objective arguments.

Yep, that's what my argument regarding subjectivity is all about.

Your bs argument remains massively flawed, as I've shown above.

What b.s.? The argument that objective biological facts do not make for objective laws or classifications is my argument. Are you confused?

The insurance companies were not the source of the objective observations. Patients who claimed that their pain was alleviated by acupuncture would have been the logical source for the companies' decision to grant limited validation of the pain-relief technique. The companies didn't validate the technique out of the goodness of their hearts or out of scientific curiosity; they overruled the earlier paradigm from materialistic science-- nothing is going on with acupuncture because we can't show the process-- because patients kept stumping for it and insurance companies wanted to attract more customers.

What? Do you think there hasn't been some scientific confirmation of the benefits of acupuncture since then? I don't understand your insurance company argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

PART 1--

Nope. That's not what I said. I've given my explanation for what objective means to me and I'll give it again if you need me to, you havent, nor have you attempted to explain what it means in regards to your argument. I have no idea what objective means to you given your description of it so I'm asking for it. I recognize that people may have different definitions of things, maybe we're just using the word differently, that's entirely possible.

You have a conveniently limited definition of what "objective" means, which substantiates my accusation that you hew to rules when it suits you, and other times you consider rules void because you can think of exceptions when they were not observed. I have in fact explained my wider definition and you simply ignore it and to counter with fallacious exceptions.

What? Any significance to society, sounds to me like a reflection of societies feelings. This begs the question what you mean by significance.

Nope, society as a whole does not have feelings. Issues such as "sports fairness" are decided by whichever side, whether for or against the issue, makes the better case. Long-term significance is then determined by the society's acceptance of the reigning view.

I don't know what trump is in reference to. I said no such thing and argued no such thing. Her doctor isnt unaware of her biology and still classified her as a female when she was born. The point there is that objective biology doesn't make for objective classification.

Then are you stating this time that the doctor's classification is as subjectively flawed as another doctor's classification that Semenya is biologically male?

What jargon are you accusing me of conflating specifically?

The scientific jargon of physicians, which you conflated to the demotic use of ordinary speech.

That doesn't mean they aren't subjective. Not everyone wants every society to survive. I'm not interested in the survival of slaver societies for instance.

The opinions of an outsider to a society are not germane to what the society believes is necessary. For instance, when Islamic societies of the seventh century began codifying laws, they had some of the same laws as other societies, such as penalties for stealing. Those laws would be objective because they are necessary for the survival of organized society. Now, was Islam's expansion of the business of buying and selling slaves objectively necessary to their societies? It certainly can be questioned as to whether this exploitation was strictly necessary. But even if the conclusion is, "No, those pro-slavery laws and practices were not necessary," that does not prove that Islamic societies did not need to have laws against stealing. Once again, you assert that if some laws may be founded in pure subjective interest. then all laws are equally subjective, once again proving the accuracy of my interpretation of your false arguments.

What's objective is that socities have rules. Objectivity doesn't make any judgements about the rules themselves. It's basically a type of tautological statement because a society is itself an group of people organized around a particular set of values and/or goals. You can't have organization without rules. That doesn't make any societies particular rules objective. The rules each society lives by are still a reflection of the sentiments of the people in that society.

The rules that transcend particular societies are objective in nature. I have not argued that particular sets of rules are objective. That's just your skewed distortion of my position.

So what? Who was arguing that rules themselves aren't a necessary compenent to organization and society? I wasn't.

You have said repeatedly that all laws are subjective and that therefore that they are not necessary components.

 

[Ouroboros]

PART 2--

Yep, that's what my argument regarding subjectivity is all about.

No, you have not argued that any objectivity inheres in the position you oppose. I assert that both sides marshal objective as well as subjective arguments but that those in favor of intersex persons competing in women's sports are the less logical of the two.

What b.s.? The argument that objective biological facts do not make for objective laws or classifications is my argument. Are you confused?

And I call BS on the statement that biological "observations" are independent of the classifications that are based on them. If the intersex population is infinitesimal in contrast to the binary sex configurations, then that alone is an "observation" that indicates that the intersex population does not merit special legal consideration in respect to the fairness in women's sports.

What? Do you think there hasn't been some scientific confirmation of the benefits of acupuncture since then? I don't understand your insurance company argument.

Doctors saying "this seems to work even though we can't explain why" is less likely to have had as much impact on the change in companies' policies than the input of customers who say the same thing but are also free to take their business to companies that extend coverage.

 

[Master Debator]

PART 1--


You have a conveniently limited definition of what "objective" means, which substantiates my accusation that you hew to rules when it suits you, and other times you consider rules void because you can think of exceptions when they were not observed. I have in fact explained my wider definition and you simply ignore it and to counter with fallacious exceptions.

That's a lot words about me and nothing to do with an actual argument. Definitions are inherently limiting. That's what they do, they define the limits of what you're talking about. When I define what a tree is I'm limiting it to a certain criteria that excludes everything else in the world that doesn't fit my defintion of what a tree is. So yes, I have a definition objective that is inherently limiting. If you gave a defintion for what objective means to you then I genuinely missed it and am requesting it again.

And to be extra clear my definition of objective are things that exist as facts and without influence of personal sentiment.

Nope, society as a whole does not have feelings.

You were the one referencing social significance my guy. If that's not a reference to the feelings of society what is it?

Issues such as "sports fairness" are decided by whichever side, whether for or against the issue, makes the better case.

Is the better case an objective thing or subjective thing? Meaning isn't that just consensus? At one point this society saw fit to support slavery. Did slavers make an objectively better case or a subjectively better one?

Long-term significance is then determined by the society's acceptance of the reigning view.

What society does or does not accept is just a reflection of the sentiments of the people who are running that society.

Then are you stating this time that the doctor's classification is as subjectively flawed as another doctor's classification that Semenya is biologically male?

I'm saying subjectivity isn't flawed. Flaws implies there's a right and wrong way to be. Her doctors classification is just different than what @CLAX1911's would be. It's @CLAX1911 who wants to try to make the case that her doctors classification is flawed or wrong but intellectual is unable to get there. What beyond their opinion would be the determining factor that her doctors opinion is wrong?

The scientific jargon of physicians, which you conflated to the demotic use of ordinary speech.

Quote it.

 

[Master Debator]

The opinions of an outsider to a society are not germane to what the society believes is necessary.

What does that matter to me though? I dont understand why I'm supposed to care about how some society feels about anything beyond its ability to force itself and its views on me. Also weren't you saying above that societies don't have feelings? Now they have beliefs? Can you please make your mind up on how you want to approach your own argument?

For instance, when Islamic societies of the seventh century began codifying laws, they had some of the same laws as other societies, such as penalties for stealing. Those laws would be objective because they are necessary for the survival of organized society.

But what does that mean when you say those laws are objectively necessary for the survival of society? Laws themselves are a necessary compenent of organization and thus society. You can't have organized society without a set of rules organizing it but laws change all the time. I think what you're recognizing is that typically people are organizing to protect their own interests that doesn't mean you have to be objectively anti theft to have a functioning society. This slaver society engaged in unimaginable amounts of theft and thrived.

Now, was Islam's expansion of the business of buying and selling slaves objectively necessary to their societies? It certainly can be questioned as to whether this exploitation was strictly necessary. But even if the conclusion is, "No, those pro-slavery laws and practices were not necessary," that does not prove that Islamic societies did not need to have laws against stealing.

What the ****? What's this hilarious internal dialog you're going on with there? Why don't you answer those questions for yourself first before you try to argue a point at me. What is your conclusion?

Once again, you assert that if some laws may be founded in pure subjective interest. then all laws are equally subjective, once again proving the accuracy of my interpretation of your false arguments.

All laws are equally subjective (based on someone or some groups interests), what makes this false? If laws aren't a reflection of people's interests then what are you claiming them to be? I didn't see that answer presented above.

The rules that transcend particular societies are objective in nature. I have not argued that particular sets of rules are objective. That's just your skewed distortion of my position.

You are claiming that there are rules that transcend particular societies and that they are objective in nature you're just not confident enough to define these rules or make any real argument supporting them so all we get are your frail claims.

You have said repeatedly that all laws are subjective and that therefore that they are not necessary components.

That's not me arguing that rules aren't necessary to organization. That's me arguing no way of organizing is objectively right or wrong. Organize however you want but it is a reflection of your wants and interests.

 

[Master Debator]

PART 2--


No, you have not argued that any objectivity inheres in the position you oppose. I assert that both sides marshal objective as well as subjective arguments but that those in favor of intersex persons competing in women's sports are the less logical of the two.

Based on what? What is my argument less logical in regards trans people in sports and why exactly makes it less logical? What does that even mean? What is less logical? Isn't either logical or illogical?

And I call BS on the statement that biological "observations" are independent of the classifications that are based on them. If the intersex population is infinitesimal in contrast to the binary sex configurations, then that alone is an "observation" that indicates that the intersex population does not merit special legal consideration in respect to the fairness in women's sports.

Who you think merits what or what you think is fair is not an observation but a subjective feeling. You're not observing merit or fairness. You observe that intersex people are less frequent in nature than binary sex configurations. That's it. Everything else is your sentiment.

Doctors saying "this seems to work even though we can't explain why" is less likely to have had as much impact on the change in companies' policies than the input of customers who say the same thing but are also free to take their business to companies that extend coverage.

What's this argument about? There's lots of natural phenomenon we observed and didn't have an explanation or understanding about until we studied it more. And?