The last link is a useful article. What you don’t seem to have notice is, despite quoting Griffiths at more than one point, their piece agrees with what I argue in the post. Yes, they agree that sex can be a life stage (e.g. clownfish) but that is about what reproductive strategy is being pursued (and, crucially, shifting between them). …
The last link is a useful article. What you don’t seem to have notice is, despite quoting Griffiths at more than one point, their piece agrees with what I argue in the post. Yes, they agree that sex can be a life stage (e.g. clownfish) but that is about what reproductive strategy is being pursued (and, crucially, shifting between them). Sex is not a life stage in mammals because mammals don’t shift reproductive strategies. The authors are not arguing that a pre-pubescent boy or girl, or a post-menopausal women, is sexless. The rest of your comment is just arguing around in circles.
Well, I don't really see how insisting on a pernickety point of definitions that asserts that everyone except fertile post- menarche and pre-menopausal women and fertile (ie not sterile) and potent men are "sexless" (a quite startlingly insulting proposition to this post menopausal woman) is really going to "draw a line in the sand" and "stop the transgender c*&**k" (sorry I cannot abide that word) as you put it. It is more likely to increase demand for more different types of public convenience by chopping us all up into more categories. Or assist the said campaign by asserting that as most people are not any sex at all them you can throw us all in hospital wards together for example .
Ok, so the proposal is to use a "having currently functional ovaries/testes" (though I would note that those Oxford definitions referenced used "can produce" or produce as a subjunctive rather than the indicative "produces" except in the case of the definition for "male") test as the clincher to exclude transwomen from being considered as female and transmen as being considered as male. I guess that might work. There might still be edge cases in intersex individuals. But I suppose the problem is that on the "folk" and everyday reality level that brings up other questions or contradictions, some which might affect legal wording to make sure one does not inadvertently change the status of other individuals in law (I am not a lawyer, I am just thinking such issues might arise if a definition like that were applied widely and strictly as I see no other way for it to have the desired effect.)
In any case you as a biologist can go on using your precise biological definitions in the academic sphere without being affected by how we define man, woman, male, female in society. That relates to many more factors such as social structures, families, customs and traditions, which derive ultimately from our evolution as humans.
The last link is a useful article. What you don’t seem to have notice is, despite quoting Griffiths at more than one point, their piece agrees with what I argue in the post. Yes, they agree that sex can be a life stage (e.g. clownfish) but that is about what reproductive strategy is being pursued (and, crucially, shifting between them). Sex is not a life stage in mammals because mammals don’t shift reproductive strategies. The authors are not arguing that a pre-pubescent boy or girl, or a post-menopausal women, is sexless. The rest of your comment is just arguing around in circles.
Yes, I did notice. The implication is they acquire a sex before they are born,
Well, I don't really see how insisting on a pernickety point of definitions that asserts that everyone except fertile post- menarche and pre-menopausal women and fertile (ie not sterile) and potent men are "sexless" (a quite startlingly insulting proposition to this post menopausal woman) is really going to "draw a line in the sand" and "stop the transgender c*&**k" (sorry I cannot abide that word) as you put it. It is more likely to increase demand for more different types of public convenience by chopping us all up into more categories. Or assist the said campaign by asserting that as most people are not any sex at all them you can throw us all in hospital wards together for example .
Ok, so the proposal is to use a "having currently functional ovaries/testes" (though I would note that those Oxford definitions referenced used "can produce" or produce as a subjunctive rather than the indicative "produces" except in the case of the definition for "male") test as the clincher to exclude transwomen from being considered as female and transmen as being considered as male. I guess that might work. There might still be edge cases in intersex individuals. But I suppose the problem is that on the "folk" and everyday reality level that brings up other questions or contradictions, some which might affect legal wording to make sure one does not inadvertently change the status of other individuals in law (I am not a lawyer, I am just thinking such issues might arise if a definition like that were applied widely and strictly as I see no other way for it to have the desired effect.)
In any case you as a biologist can go on using your precise biological definitions in the academic sphere without being affected by how we define man, woman, male, female in society. That relates to many more factors such as social structures, families, customs and traditions, which derive ultimately from our evolution as humans.