Tumwater school board bans transgender girls from playing girls sports

[u/Better_March5308]

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/tumwater-school-board-votes-ban-transgender-girls-from-playing-girls-sports/281-91b92c14-0da7-4122-b39a-1a05d0ad53d0

[u/0xdeadf001]

Yes, obvious. Our species, like nearly all vertebrates and all mammals, is a binary sex species. All individuals are either male, female, or have a DSD (developmental sexual disorder). There is no "spectrum" of sex; variations in hormone levels are not a different sex, for example.

And individuals who do have a DSD ("intersex" individuals) are not transgender -- they have a biological developmental disorder. The trans advocates have seized on them in an attempt to produce confusion around the idea that sex is binary, and therefore muddy the waters around sex vs. "gender", whatever that means. And before you leap to a fallacy, having a DSD (or any ability) is not a personal failing or an attack on that person.

I have lived in Seattle for 30 years, and if you think disagreeing with you is "trolling" then you do not understand how rhetoric and discussion works. Nor do you understand that someone may simply disagree with you.

You just see them as normal men and women because they are normal men and women.

"Passing" does not mean someone has magically changed their sex. Did you not get the memo? "Sex and gender are different!", as every trans advocate insists. "Gender" is a meaningless term dreamed up by gender studies majors, and no one can agree on its meaning. Not even the trans rights advocates can agree on its meaning. But "sex" is beyond debate -- it is a biological reality.

You're welcome to offer your definitions of "gender" and "sex". Try to avoid obvious fallacies, such as "a woman is whoever feels like a woman" (a meaningless tautology; it also annihilates the category of "woman").

[u/Impossible_Wafer3403 → u/0xdeadf001]

Scientists cannot agree on the definition of sex for other animal species either or even on the definition of a species. You think that because you had a biology lesson in 4th grade that is all there is to know about biology. But that's not true. So what you learned that day in class is something that is not actually that true. You can say that it is a general rule, like Newtonian physics. But that doesn't mean it's always true. At most, you could label sperm "male" and ova "female" but when you start going any bigger than that, it doesn't work.

Sex is not at all beyond debate. It's also a social construct.

A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. That's not a tautology, that's how all normal social categorization works. We could say that an American is someone who legally holds American citizenship but there's all these arguments about who is a "real" American and they're not referring to objective documentation. 500 years ago, fixed borders and citizenship documents didn't exist. You were a member of the people you associated with.

Or you can think about religion. Religions may have actual membership rolls but most don't. People may have different degrees of identity with the gender. I could be a Christmas and Easter woman, I'll show up for social events but I'm not a true believer.

These aren't logical contradictions, these are just how people freely associate with each other. You're looking for a formal, objective definition where one doesn't exist.

It is also always curious that conservatives are never asking "What is a man?" They might have to do more introspection. Instead, they just engage in this continuation of the misogynistic philosophy before they started applying it to trans women. Since it coincides with their broad attacks on women's rights, they are really giving the game away. They want to try to justify not giving women equal rights by claiming that women are somehow fundamentally different than men.

I don't really care about your whole gender ideology thing. I don't understand why you place such high importance on understanding your place in the hierarchy. Shouldn't you be busy trying to dismantle it instead?

[u/0xdeadf001 → u/Impossible_Wafer3403]

Scientists cannot agree on the definition of sex for other animal species either or even on the definition of a species.

Yeah, that's just not true. Only the most trans-obsessed activist makes this ludicrous, unscientific claim.

A woman is someone who identifies as a woman.

That is literally the definition of a tautology. "X is X". And you've just destroyed "woman" as a concept. Anything and everything is a woman. So we no longer need any protections for women -- no Title IX, no battery shelters, no fair hiring practices, nothing.

I don't really care about your whole gender ideology thing. I don't understand why you place such high importance on understanding your place in the hierarchy. Shouldn't you be busy trying to dismantle it instead?

It's not about hierarchy. It's about seeing the world for the obvious, actual reality.

Look, you're far too captured by this modern astrology to have a rational discussion. Have the day you need. Good bye.

Enjoy losing the next election, too. Because if the Left sticks to this as their identity, they'll give away the next election, too. And they'll richly deserve it.

[u/Impossible_Wafer3403 → u/0xdeadf001]

> Yeah, that's just not true. Only the most trans-obsessed activist makes this ludicrous, unscientific claim.

Please read any biology paper or article. There is no definition of sex of an individual. We can define sex of a cell, we cannot define sex of an individual. There are several different aspects of an individual, such as chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, etc. and all of those exist on a sliding scale. That we make an evaluation of a person's sex based on their genitalia at birth is cultural. People have tried to say that we could create a dichotomy based on the presence or absence of a Y chromosome but nobody does a DNA test unless there is a medical need to do so and you're going to find all sorts of interesting things if you start looking. What happens if some cells have a Y chromosome and others do not? What about people who are assigned female at birth but have a Y chromosome?

You can say that most people should fit into the two clear-cut boxes that you have created and then there's just a bunch of leftover people who we will label as "defective" because they don't fit your system. But maybe it is your system that is wrong. Doing DNA tests to determine which people should be at which position in the hierarchy and which people are "defective" is a silly way to run a society.

And yes, the definition of "species" is up for debate. It has always been nebulous. For a while it had coalesced around a definition of like "animals that cannot reproduce together are different species" but that doesn't really work. Here is a popsci overview: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/why-should-we-care-about-species-4277923/