• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

On what basis is something a "genetic mistake?"
On the basis that their genetic mutations cause them to not be a male or female. Or that they are born with 12 toes, or 1 leg, or a thousand other genetic aberrations. Those are all genetic mistakes.
 
On the basis that their genetic mutations cause them to not be a male or female.
what mutation? Which gene is mutated? What determines if it's a mutation?
Or that they are born with 12 toes, or 1 leg, or a thousand other genetic aberrations. Those are all genetic mistakes.
No, those are birth defects, not necessarily genetic defects.
 
Well, of course they are. As all mammals are binary. Generic mistakes do not change this.
This is like claiming that human beings are right-handed because only 10% of the population is left-handed, or, better, that all human beings favor one hand because the percentage of ambidextrous people is very small.
 
No, they aren't. It is possible to have cultural gender roles, and one example is that, in most human societies, women care for toddlers and men perform roles in group defense. But these roles do not depend on having a sexually female body or a sexually male body.

Hence, it is possible for men to care for toddlers and women to join the military, and for them to do a good job. But because these roles are considered in the culture to be female and male roles, respectively, they have to do with the two genders. Those are gender roles.

But when sexually female people gestate embryos in pregnancy and give birth, or biologically nurse their newborns, those are sex roles, not gender roles.

If you discrimination against a woman for being pregnant, that isn't gender discrimination - it's sex discrimination because you used sexual definition to discriminate against her. That can also be true if you discriminate against a trans man for being pregnant - that's sex discrimination against someone performing a sex role.

We can make sex much more complex by attending to the phenomenon of intersexual people, and all societies make gender much more complex by all their complex notions of gender appropriateness, some societies/ cultures recognizing three genders, etc.
Hence, it is possible for men to care for toddlers
that doesn't make him a female
women to join the military
that doesn't make her a male.
 
This is like claiming that human beings are right-handed because only 10% of the population is left-handed, or, better, that all human beings favor one hand because the percentage of ambidextrous people is very small.
No, it’s nothing at all like that.
 
Objectively correct.
Still wrong.
I’m sorry that biology seems to be a subject that is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Says the one who fails to understand the distinction between genetic defects and birth defects 😆
No, it’s nothing at all like that.
Sure it is. By your standard, a small percentage of the population with a particular trait (like left handedness or even red hair) is "abnormal."
 
A sphere is a 3D shape where the surface is equal distance from the center. That is not true for an oblate spheroid where the top and bottom are compressed, so its closer then the equator. Details matter, just as you cannot say that all triangles are the same because they all add up to 180°.

This is high school level geometry.
Right. So you either don't understand what "round" means, or you don't think it actually exists in the real world.
 
Back
Top Bottom