SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Would you agree that not all people view sex as binary and not as clear cut as you want it to be?

Yes, I acknowledge that this view exists.  I've discussed it many times on this board.  I've never challenged its existence, but rather its coherence and factual accuracy.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Who is correct on what that definition of sex is?  Could it be that there is no right or wrong answer, just differences in opinion on what the definition of what a woman is and what a man is may differ with different people's life experiences?  It is way more likely that a true blue Mormon would narrowly define sex as you have and a person with a more liberal background would have a more broad definition.  Who's right and who's wrong?  Given completely different  point of views, I would say there are no hard answers to who is right.  As proof of this truth, I offer you 21 pages of disagreement.  Neither side is willing to change their opinion because language is fluid.  Each side feels like they have a right to control that definition when in fact, no one has that power.

Disagreement about a fact is not evidence that there is no fact.

People argued for centuries about the shape of the earth and the causes of disease. The length of the argument did not make both sides right. It meant at least one side was wrong, or they were talking about different things. Twenty-one pages here prove that we are dug in. They do not prove that sex is a spectrum.

Language is fluid, sure.  But sex is not.  You can use “woman” for an adult human female, or for anyone who claims the word. Those are two definitions. Only one of them names a reproductive class that exists whether or not we like the vocabulary. People with differing backgrounds and perspectives can and do disagree about whether "woman" should be defined in a way that includes men.  That is sociology of which sentence people will say. It is not a finding that both sentences are equally true of the body.

“No one has the power to control the definition” is true of English in the street. It is false as a claim about biology, law and other important contexts. Biologists did not invent two gamete types by committee. Midwives did not invent male and female by “life experience.” We can fight over which word to put on a form, but we cannot vote ovaries into being a "social construct."

So who is right? If the question is “which meaning will win in HR and media,” that is politics, and you are right that no single poster owns the language. If the question is “how many sexes are there, and is a male a woman,” that is not a lifestyle preference. You are certainly free to use “woman” to refer to men socially.  I will not agree that the existence of two opinions makes the two definitions equally valid descriptions of reality.

The useful split is still the one we already have. Perhaps we should say which definition we are each using, than then argue the policy. I think we should not treat a stalemate about words as proof that the underlying distinction is optional.

I think it is beyond dispute that sex-segregated spaces have, until fairly recently, segregated by sex, not by subjective "self-identity."  Radically re-defining "woman" to include men within it reminds me of Abraham Lincoln.  

Lincoln asked: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?”  He answered: “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”  Variants of this story sometimes attribute the quote to a calf's tail instead of a dog's tail.  The lesson means that words alone cannot alter reality.

If someone asks "How many subcategories of 'woman' are there?", the answer, I think would be: "There are no subcategories.  There's just "woman."  Fabricating neologisms like "cis woman" and "trans woman" to as to facilitate the re-definition of "woman" to include men, doesn't make these men women.  Words alone cannot alter reality.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

In certain contexts I believe it is important for language to be very consistent (science, legal, and medical), but even these areas can allow for variation as long as definitions are given.

There may be other cases where language needs to be more rigid, but I love the fluidness of language.  Makes writing and speaking much more fun.  Currently I am trying to see every now and then if I can stump AI by using reasonable, but not typical and often as far as I am aware novel phrasing (though it’s likely that someone somewhere has created ‘new’ words in the same fashion or created a ‘new’ idiom using much the same wording).  Something another human would get even if it took a second.  Pretty impressed with its predictive ability, but then with the sheer mass of variety of human language data it has to pull from makes it less surprising that it’s capable of matching my snide remarks with some of its own. 

This video makes some good points about "preferred pronouns," particularly the guy at the 1:56 mark:

Quote

Host: Andrew, there you are.  It's a matter of courtesy this, and sensitivity, isn't it?

Andrew: Courtesy's all very well, and you're describing encouraging people to use certain words.  My problem is when words are policed.  When language becomes policed.  That is my problem.  Those sorts of things, 'humankind' or 'mankind,' I mean, those are sort of interchangeable now, they're synonymous anyway.  We're talking about when people actively - and it's a minority of activists, it really is a minority - seek to have people disciplined, or sacked, because they refuse to use language that they they are imposing.  That's not the evolution of language, that's the imposition of language, and I think that's problematic.

Personal pronouns, "trans women," "cisgender" and so on are not, in my view, the evolution of language, but rather the ideologically-driven imposition of it.  And the imposition has worked to some extent, but not perfectly.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Woman" is, in terms of biological sex taxonomy, a category that ends, with no subcategories underneath it.  

 

I asked AI if this was accurate:

Quote

Mostly, but the wording is more categorical than the biology supports.

If by woman you mean the biological-sex category adult human female, then yes: “woman” is not normally a biological taxonomy with biological subcategories beneath it. It is an age/sex term:

• female → biological sex category
• woman → adult human female
• girl → juvenile human female

That usage is found in ordinary dictionaries and in some contemporary scientific/governmental definitions. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines woman primarily as “an adult female person,” while the U.S. HHS definition explicitly gives “woman” = “an adult human female.”

But “a category that ends, with no subcategories underneath it” is not really a statement about biological taxonomy. There can certainly be subgroups of women based on other biological characteristics—postmenopausal women, pregnant women, women with Turner syndrome, women with PCOS, etc.—without those being subcategories of biological sex.

There’s also an important terminology issue: contemporary scientific sources don’t all use woman as a purely biological classification. The 2025 National Academies/NIH report explicitly distinguishes female from woman and uses woman as a gender/social category that can include people regardless of biological sex.

So if the intended argument is “In a strictly biological-sex framework, woman is the terminal category corresponding to adult human females, rather than a hierarchy containing different kinds of women as biological sexes,” that’s substantially accurate.

I’d phrase it more precisely as:

“In a biological-sex classification, ‘woman’ denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it.”

That avoids claiming that women can’t be subdivided for other biological, medical, demographic, or social purposes.

I like precision, so I agree with its conclusion: 

“In a biological-sex classification, ‘woman’ denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it.

That avoids claiming that women can’t be subdivided for other biological, medical, demographic, or social purposes.”

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I asked AI if this was accurate:

Quote

But “a category that ends, with no subcategories underneath it” is not really a statement about biological taxonomy. There can certainly be subgroups of women based on other biological characteristics—postmenopausal women, pregnant women, women with Turner syndrome, women with PCOS, etc.—without those being subcategories of biological sex.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I like precision, so I agree with its conclusion: 

“In a biological-sex classification, ‘woman’ denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it.

That avoids claiming that women can’t be subdivided for other biological, medical, demographic, or social purposes.”

That is a fair tightening, and I can take most of it.

I am not saying women cannot be grouped for medicine or statistics—pregnant, postmenopausal, Turner, PCOS. Those are subgroups of women, not additional sexes. That was the point: there is not a spectrum of biological sexes under “woman.” There is one sex class (female) and an age term (adult → woman).

I also agree that some current institutional documents use “woman” as a social/identity label and “female” as the sex term. The National Academies report does that on purpose. That is a choice of wording, not a finding that the sexed meaning of woman has been withdrawn from English or from biology.

So I will use your sentence:

In a biological-sex classification, “woman” denotes an adult human female; it is not itself a biological sex with further sex categories beneath it.

If someone then uses “woman” for anyone who subjectively "identifies" as one, they have left that classification. We can argue whether that second use is useful. We should not act as if it is the same use.

Neither "woman" nor "female" should be severed from their biological basis so as to add "man" or "male" into one or both of them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 10 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Neither "woman" nor "female" should be severed from their biological basis so as to add "man" or "male" into one or both of them.

So this is what is debatable in the greater conversation, imo.   

I have not been persuaded yet that there are no cases where severance with biology should occur nor that there are cases where it should, though I am pretty solid that in the so callled ‘edge cases’ (I say so called because I have doubts about if they should be labeled as edge or not) where trans men are visually indistinguishable from biological men, they should not be required to use female spaces.  In fact, I think they should be restricted in the same way biological males are…not because I see them as a greater safety risk, but because I believe there are a significant number of women who would be emotionally harmed by being forced to share vulnerable spaces with them, much more so imo than some women might be harmed by the anticipation that some biological male they have no clue is male could be sharing said space with them.  If studies show the latter harm is greater than the former harm, I could change my opinion, but I know my own reaction to having someone who looks male walk into those spaces and other women have shared similar feelings and I have never heard a woman in real life and very few online worry about being exposed to someone who looks female unless you look at body scans or genetic tests.

I am very concerned about issues of biological women’s rights for privacy and safety, including perceived safety…which is why I see requiring an individual who looks like a biological male to use women’s restrooms foolish.  Then there are rights in the workplace and education.  I find the unintended results of Title IX where there are now less available career slots for women as coaches in sports due to men moving in to compete for them once pay was required to be competitive to boys/men’s sports rather appalling, for example.  I believe biological males, especially those who went through puberty, should be restricted from participating in sports where that biology gives them a significant advantage or creates potential for harm.  Exactly where that point lies for each sport should be scientifically determined with the best science provides, imo, while respecting everyone involved (but adults choose to participate in sports so if not overly intrusive and it’s actually necessary such as blood testing, some intrusive testing could be required imo.

Edited 8 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Neither "woman" nor "female" should be severed from their biological basis so as to add "man" or "male" into one or both of them.

So this is what is debatable in the greater conversation, imo. 

Most things are debatable.  My question is whether reasonable minds can disagree about it.

If "woman" is redefined to include men, and vice versa, then the terms lose their utility.  We don't redefine "North" to include "South," or "right" to include "left," or "light" to include "darkness."  We don't redefine words so that their definitions include their antonyms, except for "man" and "woman?" 

I have to ask why.  Why do we privilege a person's subjective feeling of "identity" as to sex, but not as to age or species or height.  The privilege is, I think, purely a product of long-term strategies and pressure tactics.  And boy, it sure seems to be succeeding with a lot of people.  But it's also not holding up well.  I've repeatedly analogized the effort to The Emperor's New Clothes, and I think that may be happening more.

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have not been persuaded yet by either side as I am very concerned about issues of biological women’s rights for privacy and safety, including perceived safety…which is why I see requiring an individual who looks like a biological male to use women’s restrooms foolish.

For people with some forms of DSD, I think you are correct.  Case-by-case exceptions may be appropriate.

But we're not really talking about these folks.  instead, we are talking about any male who simply declares "I 'identify' as a woman" to be immediately treated like he is a woman.  Men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons.

If you can present a limiting principle that allows "trans women" (that is, men who subjectively "identify" as women, which identity is self-designated and not up for discussion or debate) to enter into women's spaces while excluding other men, I would really like to see it.  Your benchmark for entry seems to be "{a woman} who looks like {a man}," and vice versa.  How would that be legislated?  What wording?  What does "looks like" look like when reduced to statutory language?  Who gets to determine the metrics of who goes in and who is excluded?  And what about men who "identify" as women but have done little or nothing to "look like" them?  Do they become second-class, sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus set of folks compared to those who do pass this "looks like" test?

Public policy arguments fairly often hinge on the details, and so far nobody except CB has made any effort to formulate a proposal with details (and CB's proposal is, I think, a guaranteed non-starter).  

I'm reminded of a scene from The Hunt for Red October, in which Jack Ryan (played by Alec Baldwin) is a CIA agent trying to figure out how to communicate with a Soviet captain who is defecting with the USSR's newest ballistic sub.  Jack is transported to an aircraft carrier, where he speaks with the captain who grills him on the details of his plan.

Here's the clip:

The dialogue:

• Executive Officer: That's the craziest notion I've ever heard.  A serving line officer?  An entire ballistic missile submarine?  They can't all want to defect.  Even if it's only the officers, it's extremely difficult to believe.
• Captain: What's his plan?
• Jack: His plan?
• Captain: Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.  Senior captains don't start something this dangerous without having thought the matter through.  
• XO: What's he going to do, sail into New York, pop the hatch, and say here I am?
• Jack: It might be just that simple, yes.
• XO: Well, things may appear simple in the cubicle at CIA, but in the middle of the Atlantic, with Soviet warships bearing down on us, they get more complex.
• Captain: And I don't think your notion of a few days inspection's going to wash either.  In order to be of any value, you'd have to tear it apart.  The metallurgy would take a couple of months.  
• Jack: Then we'd have to keep it.  
• Captain: then what will you do with the crew?  Ones that don't defect will go back and say we got the boat. Or do you plan to eliminate them?
• Jack: We're not at war, sir.
• Captain: So you have to get them off the boat in such a way that they think we don't have it, and they'll report that we don't have it to their bosses.  Otherwise, this whole business is just academic, right?
• Jack: Yes, sir.  I think I see your point.

See, in this thread I feel like I am doing what the captain was doing: asking legitimate questions about the particulars, the real-world ramifications, limiting principles, and so on.  And those questions have been almost entirely ignored, with regular doses of "Bigot!" from the "squarely on the side of empirical reality" guy and his compatriots:

• Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry.
• This is what makes you a bigot. 
• I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry.

These are just from the last few pages of this one thread.  

So, what do you propose we do with "an individual who looks like a biological male" and does not want "to use women’s restrooms," and vice versa?  I assume you want to accommodate their preference, right?  How would that work? 

Quote

Then there are rights in the workplace and education.  I find the unintended results of Title IX where there are now less available career slots for women as coaches in sports due to men moving in to compete for them once pay was required to be competitive to boys/men’s sports rather appalling, for example.

Yes, unintended consequences of a law.  That can happen.  That's why I have been asking for limiting principles, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 8 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If "woman" is redefined to include men, and vice versa, then the terms lose their utility. 

But if what is included is not in the biological category but a different category, then while they may be biological males, they might not qualify as male for that category. A trivial analogy…. In my youth, no biologically male babies would be put in pink (except perhaps if the parents had no choice such as laundry day or too poor to buy a separate set for the new baby and family and friends weren’t around to pass on their previously used baby clothing as was the tradition in my family). Any baby in pink could very well end up being seen as a girlby those not familiar with them.  My daughter wore her brother’s hand me downs as a baby and on some occasions was mistaken for a boy and treated as such by strangers, mostly occured when shopping (both kids were very cute, happy babies from what was said and they got attention).

Now most would point out that the perception doesn’t matter, she was a female whether perceived as male….but if biology is severed, said in a collection of baby portraits where the photographer is showing his collection by splitting into boys and girls…her photo would have been included in the boys group.  And why not, since it worked as an example of what the photographer intended to present boys as.  The term boy and girl were useful for the photographer no matter what the biology is.

To me labeling trans women who visually pass as women works for the use of bathrooms because it’s practical in terms of maximizing the perception of safety in a restroom for women as well as allows trans women to be safer due to less harassment when they use restrooms because they will be perceived by the men in a restroom as women, even if this creates a messy area where some cases will be perceived as female by some and male by others.  Life is messy in many areas, I think it can be addressed adequately for the vast majority of cases with a little extra work that could be covered by a fee.  I have already discussed possible practical approaches, I don’t see the need to repeat myself.  While it would be subjective, it would be the subjectiveness of the community making the decision, not the individual desiring the label.  Such is a common practice for many things where community perception trumps individual perception…such as who is a lawyer and who isn’t.  (In California in 2024, apparently over 900 cases were opened against individuals attempting this.)

To me, insisting that biology is the only relevant variable in determining who uses women’s restrooms is what causes a loss of utility for the label in this case as it no longer functions as a way to exclude those who trigger defensiveness and fear in most women due to being perceived as a man.

Quote

But we're not really talking about these folks.  instead, we are talking about any male who simply declares "I 'identify' as a woman" to be immediately treated like he is a woman.  

No, I have never been talking about any male who declares this.  I don’t think others besides you have been either, though they can correct me.  I have been talking about those who are perceived as male and those perceived as females by others.

Edited 5 hours ago by Calm

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

People argued for centuries about the shape of the earth and the causes of disease. The length of the argument did not make both sides right. It meant at least one side was wrong, or they were talking about different things. Twenty-one pages here prove that we are dug in. They do not prove that sex is a spectrum.

The existence of people who don’t fit into the binary from birth and that extensive studies of activity in the brains of transgender people showing their brain activity often does match that of the gender they self-identify do show that gender is a spectrum. You just ignore that though.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it is beyond dispute that sex-segregated spaces have, until fairly recently, segregated by sex, not by subjective "self-identity."

And most segregated spaces were historically and are still currently designed to keep women (and minorities) away from power so maybe don’t hold them up as some wonderful thing that is working as intended? Unless you think they are working as intended in which case……yikes.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

If someone asks "How many subcategories of 'woman' are there?", the answer, I think would be: "There are no subcategories.  There's just "woman." 

That is something a transgender ally would say. Whoops.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you can present a limiting principle that allows "trans women" (that is, men who subjectively "identify" as women, which identity is self-designated and not up for discussion or debate) to enter into women's spaces while excluding other men, I would really like to see it.  Your benchmark for entry seems to be "{a woman} who looks like {a man}," and vice versa.  How would that be legislated?  What wording?  What does "looks like" look like when reduced to statutory language?  Who gets to determine the metrics of who goes in and who is excluded?  And what about men who "identify" as women but have done little or nothing to "look like" them?  Do they become second-class, sit-in-the-back-of-the-bus set of folks compared to those who do pass this "looks like" test?

Public policy arguments fairly often hinge on the details, and so far nobody except CB has made any effort to formulate a proposal with details (and CB's proposal is, I think, a guaranteed non-starter).  

The dialogue:

• Executive Officer: That's the craziest notion I've ever heard.  A serving line officer?  An entire ballistic missile submarine?  They can't all want to defect.  Even if it's only the officers, it's extremely difficult to believe.
• Captain: What's his plan?
• Jack: His plan?
• Captain: Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.  Senior captains don't start something this dangerous without having thought the matter through.  
• XO: What's he going to do, sail into New York, pop the hatch, and say here I am?
• Jack: It might be just that simple, yes.
• XO: Well, things may appear simple in the cubicle at CIA, but in the middle of the Atlantic, with Soviet warships bearing down on us, they get more complex.
• Captain: And I don't think your notion of a few days inspection's going to wash either.  In order to be of any value, you'd have to tear it apart.  The metallurgy would take a couple of months.  
• Jack: Then we'd have to keep it.  
• Captain: then what will you do with the crew?  Ones that don't defect will go back and say we got the boat. Or do you plan to eliminate them?
• Jack: We're not at war, sir.
• Captain: So you have to get them off the boat in such a way that they think we don't have it, and they'll report that we don't have it to their bosses.  Otherwise, this whole business is just academic, right?
• Jack: Yes, sir.  I think I see your point.

See, in this thread I feel like I am doing what the captain was doing: asking legitimate questions about the particulars, the real-world ramifications, limiting principles, and so on.  And those questions have been almost entirely ignored, with regular doses of "Bigot!" from the "squarely on the side of empirical reality" guy and his compatriots:

• Your denial of their lived experience is your bigotry.
• This is what makes you a bigot. 
• I can’t help but wonder whether the real problem is them and involves something that rhymes with spigotry.

These are just from the last few pages of this one thread.  

So, what do you propose we do with "an individual who looks like a biological male" and does not want "to use women’s restrooms," and vice versa?  I assume you want to accommodate their preference, right?  How would that work? 

That you are comparing in ‘on the ground’ military operation to transgender people getting rights as somehow equivalent is ridiculous. We don’t need to have every detail of how things will work figured out before we can do anything. This ‘just asking questions’ schtick is as old as institutional bigotry and is one of its primary defenders.

If we free the slaves what will keep them from raping all the white women?

If we let black people have civil rights what will keep them from persecuting white people or becoming communists and allying with the Soviets?

If we stop persecuting gay people what will keep them from converting your children into being gay? And AIDS!!!!!! That proves they are evil.

If we allow black people to join the military it will destroy cohesion. If you can’t explain how we will avoid destroying all discipline in the ranks we shouldn’t let them in. Oh, and the same with gay people. If we let them in all the gay recruits will prey on the straight ones. Oh, and letting women in will destroy discipline as well.

If we let women have jobs that have historically been open only to men what will keep them from wanting even more rights? If we let them go to the cities to work what will keep them all from becoming hookers?

Now it is that if we let transgender transition cis men will pretend to be transgender in order to prey on women. So transgender women cannot have equality because cis men will use their equality to be predatory? That is just disgusting. It is telling that it admits that transgender people aren’t the actual problem. Just like all the talk about grooming and abuse by transgender people is something done more by cis men as well but we can’t try to change society at all so we will just let the cis men be predatory and have a moral panic about another group that doesn’t require actually challenging the powerful because we are moral cowards or something.

Le sigh.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That you are comparing in ‘on the ground’ military operation to transgender people getting rights as somehow equivalent is ridiculous.

I think there are some similarities.  The Navy captain is asking Jack some pretty pertinent questions, and Jack is at a loss.  He hadn't really thought through the real-world ramifications of his idea.

I think we are seeing something similar in this thread.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We don’t need to have every detail of how things will work figured out before we can do anything.

I think the big moving parts need to identified and addressed.  Jack Ryan hadn't really thought about what to do with the sub, how long it would take to analyze, what to do with the non-defecting crew, and so on.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This ‘just asking questions’ schtick is as old as institutional bigotry and is one of its primary defenders.

I'm not pretending to be neutral in this area.  I oppose men in women's bathrooms and other spaces.

So I'm asking questions, but not just asking questions.  And those questions aren't getting answered, and are instead met with "Bigot!"

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now it is that if we let transgender transition cis men will pretend to be transgender in order to prey on women.

Some will, yes.  But there really isn't a "pretend to be transgender" option, since the "identity" is purely subjective.

Meanwhile, there are also privacy concerns for women and girls, and for sports, fairness concerns.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So transgender women

That is to say, biological men.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

cannot have equality

Sure they can.  Sex-segregated spaces exclude all men, including those who purport to "identify" as women.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

because cis men will use their equality to be predatory?

Predators will predate more, yes.  But again, privacy and fairness and other concerns are in play as well.

Interesting how in all this discussion there is precious little commentary on the impact on women and girls, the persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created.  Instead, almost the entire focus is on men who want to enter into women-only spaces.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is just disgusting.

I think you are attacking a straw man.

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is telling that it admits that transgender people aren’t the actual problem.

The "problem" is that some men want to enter into women's spaces.  

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Just like all the talk about grooming and abuse by transgender people is something done more by cis men as well but we can’t try to change society at all so we will just let the cis men be predatory and have a moral panic about another group that doesn’t require actually challenging the powerful because we are moral cowards or something.

I think the sexualization and grooming of children is deplorable, regardless of who is doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The existence of people who don’t fit into the binary from birth

There are no such people.  There are only two sexes.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

and that extensive studies of activity in the brains of transgender people showing their brain activity often does match that of the gender they self-identify do show that gender is a spectrum.

"Gender is a spectrum" if we are speaking of "gender" as something other than a synonym for biological sex.

If we are speaking of "gender" as a synonym for biological sex, then it is not a spectrum.

Equivocation and obfuscation are both frequent and fundamental in discussion about trans ideology.  That the proponents of this ideology must so frequently resort to these logical fallacies is, to me, one of the more clear indicators about just how incoherent and incongruent with reality the ideology is.

Also, I would like to see some sources to substantiate the "brain scan" thing, as it seems more like an urban legend or wishful thinking than something that really has happened.  

Distributions in brain activity would seem to heavily overlap.  I don't think we look look at one brain and read off sex the way we read gonads. Machine-learning can beat chance from many weak features; that is still a statistical sex difference, not a third sex or a slider.

And even if some circuits correlate with dysphoria or identity, that would be a possible correlate of a psychological condition, not proof that sex is a "spectrum" or that "identity" is sex. Height is on a spectrum; that does not make “adult” a spectrum of sexes. 

My sense is that yes, there is some literature about this topic, but it is not “extensive proof of matching brains.” It does not justify the “gender is a spectrum” claim as a biological conclusion. Sex remains a reproductive binary.  Brain sex differences are overlapping averages.

I found this 2023 study interesting: Accurate sex prediction of cisgender and transgender individuals without brain size bias.

The question examined was whether a computer could tell male from female brains from MRI scans without cheating on total brain size (TIV), and also whether "transgender" people’s brains then look like their identity or their sex.  Men’s brains are larger on average, so a lazy model just learns that “bigger = male.” That looks like a sex difference and will mis-sort anyone whose size is in the middle—including many trans people.

The study's conclusion: Once brain size is handled, the pattern that predicts sex still works for transgender as well as cisgender brains. They found no evidence that "sex" and "gender identity" interact in a way that would make the classifier fail on trans people.

Put in simple terms: the model is still reading natal sex, not "identity."

And this 2025 study: Brain Sex: Differences That Do Not Differentiate

From the intro:

Quote

The use of neuroimaging to study transgender individuals has generated both clinical interest and societal attention. Identifying a “transgender brain” is seen by some as evidence of an enduring, innate gender identity. This appeals both to those who subscribe to the notion of a biologically determined gender identity and to clinicians charged with identifying the best treatment pathways for young people with gender-related distress.
...
Neuroimaging may present as an objective lens, but the interpretation of imaging data is shaped by a series of complex human decisions, making it highly susceptible to bias. Brain imaging studies are particularly vulnerable to misinterpretation in the highly polarized field of gender medicine, where those on all sides of the debate exhort others to follow the science.

A summary of the conclusion: Differences that do not differentiate cannot carry the claim that gender identity is brain sex, or that sex itself is a spectrum.

It looks like the affirming "studies" and articles and such are not carrying forward very well.  I am open to more information on this, though.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You just ignore that though.

You haven't given me anything to ignore.  Just an assertion.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And most segregated spaces were historically and are still currently designed to keep women (and minorities) away from power so maybe don’t hold them up as some wonderful thing that is working as intended?

I question both the premise of the question and its relevance.

I think many women and girls want sex segregated spaces. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He hadn't really thought through the real-world ramifications of his idea.

The real life ramifications of requiring all biological women to use the same facilities no matter what they present as is that real biological women will not be able to tell when real people who present as real men walk into their space whether or not they have a right to be there (because they are actually trans men who are biologically female) or do not (because they are not trans, but actually men who present as male deciding to invade female spaces, sometimes for reasonable reasons such as helping a daughter use the facility and feel safe ).

I am not interested at this point until dealing with that reality is explained in detail how that will be dealt with rather than being dismissed as not important enough for whatever reason, something besides what is being thrown out there again, which likely will end up imposing on women and again forcing them to deal with laws others make “for them” without actual consideration for what women actually want…which from what I have seen is they want sex separated spaces (that’s me), but a majority of women lean towards gender identity inclusive (me: if they look like women, then for their safety and mine, please come in; if not, show me how your plan is going to make me and other women feel safer because not seen it so far.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/09/28/3-public-split-over-bathroom-use-by-transgender-people/

Unfortunately most surveys appear to just use questions about gender assigned at birth or gender identity and not actual gender presentation, which is what is going to matter more in real life where it’s faces and bodies that get the once over, not ids or birth certificates vs the theoretical, where this reality moot even be mentioned, just the reality of those who do not in physical appearance pass as the gender they identify as.
 

If they can make laws excluding any males from using women’s restrooms, why can’t they make laws excluding men from holding coaching positions in women’s sports.  (Of course that would cut into the benefits of a typical white male  with 1/3 to over 1/2 of women’s teams are likely coached by white males, probably around 5200 head coach jobs alone).  After all, there’s pretty solid documentation that having male coaches—whose aggressive behavior is more often seen as acceptable where women coaches doing the same is generally interpreted as abusive, out of control—put the girls and women at greater risk for grooming and sexual abuse if you want to address an actual case of such and not just theoretical.

Quote

The U.S. Center for SafeSport:SafeSport manages abuse cases for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movements. Its Centralized Disciplinary Database (CDD) holds records on 2,545 individuals sanctioned or restricted from sports participation. More than one-third (over 950 individuals) are listed as "Permanently Ineligible", a large majority of whom are male coaches or staff members penalised for sexual misconduct involving athletes, including minors.

https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/what-parents-should-know-sexual-abuse-youth-sports-aau-safesport
 

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/impact-report/

Edited 2 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But there really isn't a "pretend to be transgender" option, since the "identity" is purely subjective.

Wouldn’t they don’t believe they are transgender, but tell people they are be that option?

Just like pretending to be a doctor means someone doesn’t believe they are a doctor but tell people they are?  Or if you want something purely subjective, they don’t believe they are shy, don’t feel shy, but tell people they are and act in ways they think shy people act….that’s pretending to be shy.  And being shy can fen become an identity or part of one’s identity.  It certainly was for me for a good chunk of my life, more important than being female as it felt Ike it had a much greater impact on what I could an couldn’t do.

Edited 2 hours ago by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there are some similarities.  The Navy captain is asking Jack some pretty pertinent questions, and Jack is at a loss.  He hadn't really thought through the real-world ramifications of his idea.

I think we are seeing something similar in this thread.

I think the big moving parts need to identified and addressed.  Jack Ryan hadn't really thought about what to do with the sub, how long it would take to analyze, what to do with the non-defecting crew, and so on.

I'm not pretending to be neutral in this area.  I oppose men in women's bathrooms and other spaces.

So I'm asking questions, but not just asking questions.  And those questions aren't getting answered, and are instead met with "Bigot!"

Some will, yes.  But there really isn't a "pretend to be transgender" option, since the "identity" is purely subjective.

Meanwhile, there are also privacy concerns for women and girls, and for sports, fairness concerns.

That is to say, biological men.

Sure they can.  Sex-segregated spaces exclude all men, including those who purport to "identify" as women.

Predators will predate more, yes.  But again, privacy and fairness and other concerns are in play as well.

Interesting how in all this discussion there is precious little commentary on the impact on women and girls, the persons for whom sex-segregated spaces were created.  Instead, almost the entire focus is on men who want to enter into women-only spaces.

I think you are attacking a straw man.

The "problem" is that some men want to enter into women's spaces.  

I think the sexualization and grooming of children is deplorable, regardless of who is doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

And you didn’t answer any of the core idea of what I said and instead just broke what I said up into small pieces and repeated pat phrases after them.

Also no, sex-segregated spaces were created by men for men long before women got any meaningful spaces for themselves. Also I am personally tired of the people who support restricting the rights of women in general  pretending they care about women’s spaces and women’s sports. They don’t unless it serves as a bludgeon against someone else they don’t like. Same with the mostly mythical LGB mythos. While their side is gutting adoption rights for gay couples they want to pretend they are helping the LGBTQ community defend itself from an interloper when they want to hack away at the rights of everyone in the community.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are no such people.  There are only two sexes.

I could explain the existence of intersex people to you for what? The tenth time? Maybe more? Why bother?

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand and pretend that religious dogma and reality somehow match up perfectly but you should give up arguing about it if you are just going to selectively edit reality or suggest some people don’t matter because there are relatively few of them or whatever.

Oh, and about the brain imaging. I wasn’t claiming there is a hard and strict dichotomy. I was arguing that it showed a spectrum, the very thing you deny exists. The studies show that *checks notes* there is a spectrum and transgender people lean more towards their self-identified gender in terms of brain function than cisgender people assigned the same gender at birth. I don’t see how saying there is a spectrum which you do to refute me suggests you are right about there being a strict binary. PICK A LANE!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

sex-segregated spaces were created by men for men long before women got any meaningful spaces for themselves.

In many cases to protect men from having to endure the presence of women…except servers, courtesans or outright prostitutes.

Gentlemen’s clubs, for example.  Pubs and bars.  Ladies rooms at some of said establishments popped up in late 19 century.  Iow, traditionally speaking women were part of the service, not the ones being served, kept safe (more often the reverse).

All male gyms date back to Ancient Greece.  Women only gyms (independent of schools) I believe early 1900s.

Fraternal organizations.  Need I say more than the name?

Barbershops another ancient tradition where female version showed up in modern times.  Same with public restrooms as mentioned by webbles earlier.

Prior to 19th century “sex segregated” typically meant “no women…’respectable’ at least…allowed”

I would describe truly sex segregated spaces (spaces available for both, but each designated for one sex and still not always in equal numbers, not just including one sex and excluding the other) as a hundred and fiftyish year old tradition.  About the same length of time as the flush toilet.  Potty parity didn’t start to occur in the US until 1989 though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity

Edited 9 minutes ago by Calm