Sacked doctor sues former employer for refusing to call trans-woman "she"

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661625#Comment_118661625

Ah now now, temper temper, budgese!! 😂

I was merely trying to help out with the misunderstanding where you thought Orinoco called you a man, when it was klaz who referred to you as “he”, originally. My guess is that Orinoco didn’t know that you were actually referring to yourself when you answered klaz’s post. Now, I hope I did get that right :D but in case I didn’t, my apologies to all and any party involved. It’s getting quite late,isn’t it??

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661445#Comment_118661445

The point is that you are in effect putting the horse before the cart. Biology is one of the life sciences. It is not a phenomenon in and of itself, and the study of the human species is only one tiny aspect of biology. Hormones can either be naturally occurring, or synthetic.

If you were keen to want to be seen to be as striving for accuracy in your definitions - hormones are chemicals.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661653#Comment_118661653

I'm actually fascinated to learn that budgsese was "assigned female at birth".

It sounds interesting. I wasn't aware sex was something you "assign", I thought it was a biological reality.

It must have been odd being a sexless foetus in the womb before a clever doctor decided she was female!

You see how moronic these phrases are?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661630#Comment_118661630

When they start getting personal you should take it as a sign that they have no argument. It generally means you’re right. That poster admitted to trolling you all day….. just wow. You have much more patience than I ever had.

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661673#Comment_118661673

Oh I do see, believe me! :D I know a few on this thread who won’t be one bit happy with that, though!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661633#Comment_118661633

And yet I’ve never had any issues being understood when I used the word, have you?

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661681#Comment_118661681

Well, that’s what she would like to believe, I guess. Trolling someone all day sounds so fierce, doesn’t it? Much better than wasting everyone’s time with a back and forth that’s heading nowhere fast… ah shur listen, as I said earlier it’s still stormy here in the west, I haven’t stepped a foot outside all day so it’s helped pass the time…

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661684#Comment_118661684

Yes, you have.

I don't know what you mean when you use the word "woman", and you won't tell me.

You can't have a conversation about anything if you can't define terms.

It's time for my bed.

Still no definition of "woman" other than "adult human female"

We all know the truth btw: any definition of "woman" that fits the "trans women are women" can ONLY be based on stereotypes, social roles, etc. And thus will be complete sexist bullshit.

So it can't be said out loud, which is painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread

LLMMLL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661713#Comment_118661713

It's pretty simple. He can tell you what he means without giving an exact definition.

If he said by woman I mean "those with XX chromosomes and also trans women" you would have no idea what he means?

You couldn't tell from him saying that whether he considered Hilary Clinton to be a woman or not? You'd be completely mystified? Hmmm sure.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661713#Comment_118661713

You can though, and here we are having a conversation, without needing to define terms, where I can use the word woman, and you can in bad faith pretend you don’t understand what I mean. I don’t believe you.

That’s why I said I’d rather not create an intellectual vacuum by trying to define woman, because I know that there will be characteristics and circumstances which do and don’t apply depending upon the circumstances.

It’s why I think the whole idea of trying to limit the definition of woman to dictionary definitions such as ‘adult human female’ and referring to women as ‘biological human females’ or ‘natal females’ intended to represent the idea of ‘biological reality’, well, they fall well short of defining women IMO, and serve as nothing more than reductive attempts to limit how people express themselves. You’re free to do it of course, as is anyone, I just don’t know if it’s going to catch on that women will begin to refer to themselves as adult human females tbh. If you imagine the whole idea of being assigned a sex at birth is moronic, you’re not exactly bucking the trend by trying to promote the idea of referring to women as adult human females.

That’s just me though, I wouldn’t use it. That’s not to say I don’t understand where you’re coming from, I would just be more likely to associate the use of the term ‘adult human female’ with those incel types tbh, the type of guy that the closest they ever got to a woman was when they emerged from their mothers womb.

Gant21

It’s time to turn off the WiFi.

@One eyed Jack

@One eyed Jack I sincerely believe this nit picking of details of what makes a woman is seeing the trees for the forest. Any woman might have some condition that stops her from having as much estrogen as your average woman, or they might not have breasts like your average woman, or they might not lactate like your average woman, or they might not be able to conceive like hour average woman or they might have six fingers, or a tail or whatever..etc..etc..etc.. but even without one of these things they still show numerous other traits that would make it easy for anyone to identify them as a woman. The biological reality is that all women everywhere possess many of these traits. To deny this is to deny reality itself. Women are the only people who can give birth because only women have wombs and the proper plumbing.

A woman without breasts is still easily identified as a woman.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661703#Comment_118661703

I work with adults who have learning difficulties, special needs. So you are just a regular person to me. That is why I have tried so hard to explain my point to you.

I take it you don't express your homosexuality because you are afraid of it, but as open as I am I am sorry to say my attraction is for the opposite sex and I am married.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661796#Comment_118661796

Who’s nitpicking though? The people who seek to nail down the definition of a word to exclude all the characteristics which they don’t approve of, or the people who aren’t seeking to limit how anyone is defined by a particular set of characteristics?

It’s why I don’t particularly care in any case to define woman, I’ve never had any difficulty in being understood when I used the word, in any of the languages I know. Yet there are people in this thread pretending that they’re struggling with the concept, and they are pretending - they haven’t gotten this far in life by being as stupid as they want anyone to believe.

They’re aware of the implications as is everyone else, and it’s why they want to argue about the definitions of woman, because they imagine that’ll stop anyone in their tracks. It doesn’t, clearly!

seenitall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661807#Comment_118661807

Uh oh, budgese! Be still my beating heart - oh how you have sent a dagger through it!! 💔

Seriously, I really don’t know if a certain part of the above is a rather bad attempt at a pretty inappropriate insult (which I do suspect it is) or if we are just having a good natured joshing moment (as the Yanks would put it), which another part of your post would suggest.

In any case, if another insult - nothing new although a tad disappointing, if joking and joshing - Happy days, and have a good night! *big kiss*

Quantum Erasure

The last few pages:

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118660517#Comment_118660517

Ah jaysis...

Quantum Erasure

A women's group has convinced judges that an attempt by the Scottish government to expand the definition of "woman" to include transwomen breaches equality law.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60435954

From the ruling:

By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics, and in one case qualifies the nature of the characteristic which is to be given protection. It would have been open to the Scottish Parliament to include an equal opportunities objective on public boards aimed at encouraging representation of women. It would have been open to them separately to do so for any other protected characteristic, including that of genderreassignment. That is not what they have done. They have chosen to make a representation objective in relation to women but expanded the definition of women to include only some of those possessing another protected characteristic. Having regard to the general proportions within society of men and women, an objective aimed at achieving on public boards a representation of women in a measure of 50% would seem entirely reasonable and proportionate.

...

The fact that an appropriate percentage for a representation objective in relation to one protected characteristic may not be proportionate and appropriate to another characteristic highlights why it is important to apply an individual approach to the characteristics and to focus in each case on those who share a relevant protected characteristic. A measure which reflected an equal opportunities appropriate representation objective for one group, might, if applied to another, reveal itself not to be an equal opportunities measure at all.

In any event, the definition of woman adopted in the legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It qualifies the latter characteristic by protecting only those with that characteristic who are also living as women. The Lord Ordinary stated that the 2018 Act did not redefine “woman” for any other purpose than “to include transgender women as another category” of people who would benefit from the positive measure. Therein lies the rub: “transgender women” is not a category for these purposes; it is not a protected characteristic and for the reasons given, the definition of “woman” adopted in the Act impinges on the nature of protected characteristics which is a reserved matter. Changing the definitions of protected characteristic, even for the purpose of achieving the GRO, is not permitted and in this respect the 2018 Act is outwith legislative competence.

LLMMLL

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60420339

On the other hand...

"He said: "Some transgender people at the very least would not be answering the sex question falsely by stating that their sex was other than that recorded on their birth certificate and the guidance merely acknowledges that.""

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661723#Comment_118661723

Yes, I'd have no idea what he means.

You are suggesting women are both adult human females and people who are not female but claim to be "women". But that's a circular definition. How can you claim to be something you can't define?

As you will no doubt be aware many trans women have penises, testicles, beards and the rest. 99% of the planet would consider those people to be men. Biology tells us they are male.

So if you are going to tell me they are women, you are going to have to explain why that is the case.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661778#Comment_118661778

Sorry, you've completely lost me now. How on earth does understanding the biological reality of being a woman mean "reductive attempts to limit how people express themselves"?

People can and should express themselves however they choose. That is nothing to do with biology.

On the other hand I think you DO define woman based on how someone expresses themselves? Or what is it? If it's not biological sex, you must have some sense of what makes a woman, no?

'man' and 'woman' are not biological terms. They are merely language terms used to describe certain adults. Language can change and evolve over time to have new meanings and include other things.

We now have trans men and trans women. Everybody understands all those terms, so clearly they don't need dictionary definitions.

Not biology.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661973#Comment_118661973

"Everybody understands all those terms, so clearly they don't need dictionary definitions."

Lol.

Are you serious? What makes a trans woman a woman? Just tell me. How hard can it be?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661974#Comment_118661974

A gender recognition certificate

Let's be completely clear about what is happening here.

The words "man" and "woman" are being redefined. We are being told that the understanding of thousands of years, and 99% of the planet, is now incorrect. A woman isn't a female human being. A man isn't a male human being.

They are, apparently, something else.

But nobody will tell you what that thing is.

Insanity.

Nope, that is not what you're being told at all. Not sure how long the words man and woman are in common usage, I doubt that it has been thousands of years, but they are now merely expanding to include other adults. Language evolves.

A woman is an adult female human, it now also includes trans woman.

A man is an adult male human, it also now includes trans men.

just because trans people exist, doesn't stop women from being women or men from being men. It's hysterical nonsense to believe otherwise

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118662017#Comment_118662017

If the category "woman", now includes trans women (who by definition are not female) then there must be some reason for that.

What is that reason? What is it about trans women that makes them women?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118662021#Comment_118662021

A gender recognition certificate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661978#Comment_118661978

So a man is a person with a gender recognition certificate saying they are a man, and a woman is a person with a gender recognition certificate saying they are a woman?

That's what you're going with?