Trans activists are now arguing wrong-sex hormones are too much to ask of cheating male athletes. (Talk about demanding a mile with every inch.) A man is, by definition, ineligible in women’s sports. Symbolically lowering his current testosterone levels* shouldn’t impact his
"In jurisdictions where self-id runs roughshod over women’s rights there is no criteria."
Amen to that. A more odious "idea" -- rather delusion -- is scarcely imaginable. Apropos of which & ICYMI, an article and my comment thereon over at "The Transatlantic" -- not a pun on or allusion to transgenderism:
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
But welcome back -- seems you've been away 4 or 5 months? Any follow-up or further developments on your "Letters Into a Cold Void?" 🙂
But apropos of which and of your latest, I still think it's rather unwise for women in particular to be betting the farm on the definition for "woman" as "adult human female" -- not least because, as I argued over there, both "male" and "female" are transitory states, not identities, much less immutable ones.
Methinks a better bet might be "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" -- joining the definition at the hip with "female" is "problematic". Ran across this recently which emphasizes the point:
Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
"In jurisdictions where self-id runs roughshod over women’s rights there is no criteria."
Amen to that. A more odious "idea" -- rather delusion -- is scarcely imaginable. Apropos of which & ICYMI, an article and my comment thereon over at "The Transatlantic" -- not a pun on or allusion to transgenderism:
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/self-id-or-nullius-in-verba-between/comment/47238283
But welcome back -- seems you've been away 4 or 5 months? Any follow-up or further developments on your "Letters Into a Cold Void?" 🙂
But apropos of which and of your latest, I still think it's rather unwise for women in particular to be betting the farm on the definition for "woman" as "adult human female" -- not least because, as I argued over there, both "male" and "female" are transitory states, not identities, much less immutable ones.
Methinks a better bet might be "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" -- joining the definition at the hip with "female" is "problematic". Ran across this recently which emphasizes the point:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."