Tomorrow a family camp we attended for decades, gets underway in Seabeck, Washington without me and my partner Bruce. As discussed in a prior article, we’ve been expelled for our gender critical views.
All absolutely spot on, but tragically the gender sheep are unlikely to listen, precisely because, as you say, no matter what you say to them "It’s as if we haven’t said what we’ve said". I don't know how to get through to people that what they're saying makes no sense. Even more sadly, if the spell is ever broken, I don't know if I want to have these people back in my life
Well put. Once one knows that another will willfully ignore a harmful truth, and through silence if not active embrace collude in perpetuating that harm, one can't unknow it. It seems more a character trait -- a kind of moral cowardice -- than an opinion.
That's right. Believing in gender ideology is more like an absence of an opinion. If you ask a believer to explain their belief, all you will get is hysterical emotional blackmail
My experience is more that they ignore evidence-based arguments -- i.e. the scientific reality of an innate, immutable sex binary, legitimate concerns about "gender-affirming care" for minors, documented harms done to females by male trespass -- and offer nothing of substance to legitimize gender ideology, just squishy "kindness" and 'Inclusion" stuff. Those I've engaged are strikingly uninformed, and evince no serious desire to rectify that, no matter what resources I offer. I suspect the cognitive dissonance of engaging the facts -- which contradict an ideology of the "progressive" tribe to which they belong -- is just too uncomfortable for them.
Yes that's all the kind of thing I mean. Behind any calls for 'kindness' or 'inclusion' is the emotional manipulation of suggesting that by objecting to these things (for good reasons!) you are NOT kind or inclusive. They've already accepted the nonsense as fact, so the way they justify it is by accusing everyone else of some sort of character flaws. Lots of projection in there too
I feel so upset and angry about this situation: women in prison having men imposed on them and being unable to escape because they are incarcerated. It is incredible that so many people are tolerant of this. Here in the UK it has been rolled back to some extent but not completely. I have just heard that there will be a day of action outside all the women's prisons but I don't know how to find out about when it will be, as I am not on twitter.
Find your local Women's Rights Network via the WRN website and join. They'll have all the deets! I'm with the Liverpool & Merseyside branch. Date still to be confirmed as yet but all branches have WhatsApp group for info exchange, posts, networking and sisterhood 💪✊🤝👊🫶
Another man has just been placed in Downview women's prison. This was meant to have stopped. There are also a few other men still in women's prisons that were never moved out when Conservatives changed the policy.
Northern Radfem Network are organising a mass protest at all women's prisons around the country on the same day. Date TBC soon. Nearest in the North West is HMP Styal which is very close to Manchester Airport.
I'll pass on the dates as soon as it's confirmed if anyone would like to attend.
If anyone has any contacts with women's groups other than WRN that are close to a women's prison, please could you ask them to contact @femnorthern if they are interested in joining in.
We'll be working along the same model as we did when we were representing KPSS."
I'm a grifter because I mentioned Colin Wright? What a rude thing to say! My reply to you was not rude and does not merit rudeness.
Please share the dictionary definition that you think supports your bizarre statement that a castrated male ceases to be male or that a woman without ovaries or with non-working ovaries ceases to be female. I've never seen a definition that says that older women are no longer female. Maybe that's not what you're trying to say, but it seems like it is.
You might try putting your comments in the relevant thread -- this one of yours is at the top level. Though Substack is partly to blame -- too easy to mistake a top level for a lower one when commenting.
But I think I was sort of careful to differentiate between you and Wright -- he's the grifter, not you, for peddling definitions that are flatly contradicted by more reputable sources. Unless you're trying to make money out of peddling the same bogus definitions as he is? But I've quoted the standards elsewhere here, though as a point of reference:
But it's not necessary to say that "a castrated male ceases to be male" --it's how definitions work. You think it's necessary to say, in the definition for teenager, that someone who's had their 20th birthday is no longer a teenager? It's implicit in the definition -- if someone isn't 13 to 19 then they simply don't qualify. Try thinking about this Wikipedia article on definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
The biological definitions stipulate that "produces gametes" (present tense) is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the terms "male" and "female". The same way that the definition for "teenager" stipulates that "being 13 to 19" is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the term "teenager".
But y'all might have some interest in this Wiley Online Library article, by a trio of reputable biologists, that underlines the point:
Wiley: "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles ....
Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it maybe a life-history stage. 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."
Many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- pass into and out of the sex categories depending on whether they meet the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership -- i.e., having functional gonads.
This particular article deals with the issue of men (males) identifying as women (ie transwomen) being incarcerated with women (ie females). As noted in the article a majority of these transwomen are still anatomically intact males.
So how does the definition of sex you cite relate to this particular issue?
Good question, though the answer turns on the more fundamental question of what it takes to qualify as males and females in the first place. Which the definitions I've quoted speak direct and unequivocally to: i.e., no gonads, no sex. Period.
As you say, if somewhat indirectly, some of those transwomen -- i.e., those who've had "gender affirming surgery 🙄" -- are NOT males, they're sexless eunuchs. Arguably, prisons and toilets should be segregated by penises and vaginas, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.
Carol's more or less justified argument is largely against the prospect of "intact males" in women's prisons raping the women inmates. Which is precluded if they're castrated first. A relevant quote from her post:
CD: "According to the guard 'once the precedent was set that men can pretend to be women and get into the women's prison, it was like that door opened, and there was a flood of men trying to get over to the women's prison.' ..."
Kinda think the number of "applicants" would be greatly reduced if they had to first cut off their dicks and balls.
That this gross abuse of women is being allowed to happen in allegedly "developed "countries makes me incandescent with rage !! Anyone who supports this horror ,for any reason is,at best , an abject COWARD ,at worst a woman hating ,predatory MONSTER. There can no longer be ANY EXCUSE for promoting or supporting this abhorrent ideology ,as the evidence of harm to women becomes ever greater and more visible. Progressive ?? It's state sanctioned medieval TORTURE and should NEVER be permitted in ANY civilized society. There will surely be a special place in hell for the architects of this misogynistic ,homophobic,anti human movement. Thank you for speaking up . Keep fighting x
I think the concept of “coercive control” has merit when discussing so called “consensual sex” in the context of males and females sharing prison cells. That is, the implicit threat of (physical) violence will be enough to make a woman “consent” to sex in this context. Consequently there may be no evidence of physical harm. Being in prison is already a coercive situation for a prisoner (even if in this case it’s (hopefully) justified coercion). A female having to share a cell with a male, who is (with vanishingly few exceptions) going to be much stronger than her, with a much greater ability and propensity to inflict physical violence, adds another completely unjustified layer of coercion. Furthermore, the majority of male prisoners, including the ones who claim to identify as women, have been incarcerated for violent offences. By contrast the majority of female prisoners have been incarcerated for nonviolent offences.
I have heard the argument that women prisoners should “share the burden” of sexual violence, because some male prisoners are violated by fellow inmates who are stronger and more violent. I’m afraid two wrongs don’t make a right - rather the whole concept of cell-sharing needs to be addressed.
For anyone who finds it hard to grasp the idea that males are stronger and faster than females, these graphics explain it very powerfully: http://www.boysvswomen.com/
Couldn't agree more! I'm away far away on Skye Scotland or I'd be outside those prisons with you all.
It's starting to turn around-much too late for the women locked in with predatory men right now,much too late for the women already raped and beaten (yes,some jailed women have been beaten badly by these men).
I'm sick and tired of the screeching about trans being so precious,sparkly and gentle-how many school shootings now?
How many trantifa lunatics?
I genuinely believe the cross sex hormones cannot be tolerated and therefore send both men and woman stark staring insane.
It used to be that there would perhaps be a pregnancy once a decade,usually an 'affair' with a guard,and consensual although wrong in so so many ways.
As you point out,the self same people who used to champion women's rights have swept them all aside for men-i wouldn't have believed we would end up here,not in a month of Sundays but here we are and enough was enough 10 years ago.
Such important work. Thank you for your research and clear articulation of this issue. The degree to which gender zealots deny these harms is maddening, and the persistence with which many others choose to look away is disheartening. More and more, I get the feeling that female experience -- whether on the playing field or behind bars -- just doesn't matter to most people, women as well as men, if it conflicts with what any male wants.
These policies are possibly incentivizing violent sex offenders and killers of women. Any long prison term served in a women’s facility is a dream come true for these most violent offenders. They’ll be safe and surrounded by women they can easily intimidate into obedience. It’s win-win for them.
I was a liberal for most of my life, but I would be more than happy to vote for actual fascists if they would execute every male prisoner who has transferred into a Women's prison and every politician and bureaucrat who had a hand in enabling it to happen.
Speaking of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, I was impressed by FAIR's campaign against the excesses of trans activism. For example, I was glad to see FAIR challenge the California Department of Education's preferred pronoun policy and its refusal to inform parents when their kids adopt a trans identity at school. That occurred several years before the latter policy became the law in the State of California.
Then I discovered that FAIR has a high tolerance for anti-gay religious intolerance.
Last year, FAIR platformed a member of its advisory board, Princeton's Professor Robert P. George, on the occasion of his receipt of the Religious Freedom Institute’s 2023 Defender of Religious Freedom Award.
Whatever else Professor George may be, he is also a seasoned right-wing Catholic anti-choice and anti-gay activist. [1] This is part of what he said in his acceptance speech before the Religious Freedom Institute:
"And here at home, we stand up for the rights of the Evangelical Christian baker or wedding planner threatened with legal sanctions for honoring his or her conscientious belief in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife . . ." [2]
When pressed to explain how an organization that professes to oppose intolerance could place a proponent of religious intolerance on its board of advisors and in effect platform his anti-gay ideology, FAIR's response was disingenuous, passive and amoral.
Here is how Supreme Court Associate Justice Sotomayor characterized Professor George's variety of religious freedom in her dissent in the 2023 case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (600 U.S. 575):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.
Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ibid.
“What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.
Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent. [2]
You seem to have lost sight of an important distinction which the Court recognized: refusing to bake a wedding cake that celebrates gay marriage is not the same as refusing to serve gay customers. If the baker had refused to sell anything to gay customers, he would have been found to be violating their civil rights, but baking a cake for them was seen as artistic expression, not just straight forward commerce. Not forcing him to do this would be the same as not forcing a black commercial musician to write a song celebrating the Ku Klux Klan or an atheist musician to write a Christian hymn. These are artistic expressions, and forcing them to do this would be violating their consciences and compelling speech, both of which violate the First Amendment. The baker's views are that gay marriage is against his religious belief, and if we can't respect that, then the First Amendment is meaningless for all of us.
I defer to Justice Sotomayor's more learned analysis of this case, including her persuasive argument that it was wrongly decided on First Amendment grounds.
I didn't quote the rest of Professor George's acceptance speech, but it reveals that he certainly isn't inclined to stop at discriminating against gays on legal grounds in cases of supposed "artistic expression." He wants to create a religious apartheid in which gays can be excluded from a wide range of business concerns that are traditionally secular in purpose:
"“We insist on the right to shape and run our institutions — be they schools, hospitals, food pantries, shelters, adoption agencies, rehab centers, or what have you — in line with the tenets of our faiths . . .”
"Or what have you . . ." is where George shows his true aims. That Christian baker? If he had his druthers, he wouldn't sell a gay person a bagel.
It was reported recently that George is hard at work ginning up legal theories to support the notion that personhood begins at conception. If the court were to accept that, the theory would end abortions on the grounds they violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
> "Exchanges with various friends, family members, and acquaintances over the past year have made that commitment to ignorance quite clear."
I can sympathize. And, as you've suggested, many others are in the same boat. Like telling Muslims that Muhammad was a pedophile.
But a thorough summary of the problem. Though this bit of yours, an article of faith of your own, is part of the problem:
Carol: "Sex is real. It is binary and immutable. And it matters."
Yes, quite agree on "real", "binary", and "matters". However, "immutable" is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexLESS eunuchs -- hardly "immutable".
See these reputable biological journals encyclopedias and dictionaries for specifics:
No, the definition of biological sex that I have read evolutionary biologist Colin Wright share is not to have "functional" gonads of one sex or the other, but to have a body set up to produce either sperm or ova. Going by your definition, a woman would cease to be female once she has gone through menopause or if she had her ovaries removed. No serious person has ever said that older women or women who've had their ovaries removed are no longer female, nor are castrated males no longer males. They are just that: castrated males.
> "the definition of biological sex that I have read evolutionary biologist Colin Wright share is ..."
Who the hell is Colin Wright? A fraud, a grifter, a scientifically and philosophically illiterate opportunist if the truth be known. You think his "opinions" should trump definitions published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology? You might actually try reading thinking about what they're saying.
> "Going by your definition, a woman would cease to be female once she has gone through menopause or if she had her ovaries removed."
So what? Are you "offended"? Think we should "be kind" and pander to women's vanity?
Too many people -- mostly women -- have turned the sexes into "immutable identities 🙄" based on some "mythic essences" -- as philosopher Jane Clare Jones once put it. But the biological definitions aren't designed for that purpose -- they're designed to categorize millions of species, and to understand sexual reproduction.
You, and grifters like Wright, can peddle your own definitions -- but it ain't biology.
Note that his definition of male and female is similar to the Oxford Dictionary's: "an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary." The principal difference is that the Oxford Dictionary definition omits the "organized, through development" part. Dictionaries, by design, are intended to produce one-sentence definitions, which therefore omit certain details. Wright's definition is more complete, and it addresses the issue raised by Ms. Mann, explaining how a woman whose ovaries are no longer productive is still a woman, and a castrated man is still male.
Name-calling -- e.g., "fraud, grifter" -- is not argument. If you have reason to believe he is wrong, you should be able to identify his errors with specificity, not resort to baseless smearing.
But I have, in fact, "identified his errors with specificity" -- he's just too gutless to address them. You might consider posting these definitions over there for reference:
In particular, some of my objections to his rather "fraudulent" claims:
Wright: "The 'sex binary' refers to the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female—and that these categories refer to individuals whose primary sex organs are organized around the production of either sperm (male) or ova (female). The 'sex binary' does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are."
Absolutely NO reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary says ANYTHING at all about "organized around the production" -- they ALL say "produces gametes", right now, not 10 years ago or maybe in 10 years time. See:
You've got diddly-squat there mate in the way of well-evidenced rebuttals and counterarguments. Barking like trained seals and demented parrots in response to the quite unscientific claptrap peddled by grifters and frauds like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne.
Wow, 🛞MAN - you really are a piece of work, aren't you? "pander to women's vanity"? 😂🤡 Incels gonna incel, I guess - even when their shrivelled ole bawbags resemble rabbit slippers 😂🥀
LoL -- cut to the quick I am. Ask of me tomorrow and you'll find me a grave man ... 😉🙂
Though I can hardly count the number of "women" who've blocked or banned me for promoting the biological definitions and their consequences. Many seem to "think" I'm "dehumanizing" them thereby -- prima facie evidence of many women turning the sexes into "immutable 🙄 identities" based on some "mythic essences". Vanity writ large -- and based on illusion to boot. For details, you might read Jane Clare Jones for her comment about "bun-fights over mythic essences":
As for your "piece of work", I prefer "a piece of work in progress" ... 😉🙂 Apropos of which, you might have some interest in my post on "The Imperative of Categories" -- particularly since, if I'm not mistaken, your Twitter handle had been "Terfy" and you get star billing here 😉🙂:
I would have thought this was obvious, but it's biological sex that's immutable, and that's what counts. If some bloke cuts his balls off, it's not biology at work; it's human culture.
Did you bother to even read the definitions I linked to?
Those sources all SAY "produces gametes" -- present tense. Which means that those not currently doing so -- like blokes who've cut their balls off -- simply don't qualify as male or female; they're sexless.
You might also try reading some biology, these two articles by philosopher of science Paul Griffiths in particular:
All absolutely spot on, but tragically the gender sheep are unlikely to listen, precisely because, as you say, no matter what you say to them "It’s as if we haven’t said what we’ve said". I don't know how to get through to people that what they're saying makes no sense. Even more sadly, if the spell is ever broken, I don't know if I want to have these people back in my life
Well put. Once one knows that another will willfully ignore a harmful truth, and through silence if not active embrace collude in perpetuating that harm, one can't unknow it. It seems more a character trait -- a kind of moral cowardice -- than an opinion.
That's right. Believing in gender ideology is more like an absence of an opinion. If you ask a believer to explain their belief, all you will get is hysterical emotional blackmail
My experience is more that they ignore evidence-based arguments -- i.e. the scientific reality of an innate, immutable sex binary, legitimate concerns about "gender-affirming care" for minors, documented harms done to females by male trespass -- and offer nothing of substance to legitimize gender ideology, just squishy "kindness" and 'Inclusion" stuff. Those I've engaged are strikingly uninformed, and evince no serious desire to rectify that, no matter what resources I offer. I suspect the cognitive dissonance of engaging the facts -- which contradict an ideology of the "progressive" tribe to which they belong -- is just too uncomfortable for them.
Yes that's all the kind of thing I mean. Behind any calls for 'kindness' or 'inclusion' is the emotional manipulation of suggesting that by objecting to these things (for good reasons!) you are NOT kind or inclusive. They've already accepted the nonsense as fact, so the way they justify it is by accusing everyone else of some sort of character flaws. Lots of projection in there too
I feel so upset and angry about this situation: women in prison having men imposed on them and being unable to escape because they are incarcerated. It is incredible that so many people are tolerant of this. Here in the UK it has been rolled back to some extent but not completely. I have just heard that there will be a day of action outside all the women's prisons but I don't know how to find out about when it will be, as I am not on twitter.
Find your local Women's Rights Network via the WRN website and join. They'll have all the deets! I'm with the Liverpool & Merseyside branch. Date still to be confirmed as yet but all branches have WhatsApp group for info exchange, posts, networking and sisterhood 💪✊🤝👊🫶
OK, thanks! I have joined already so I will check their website. I am in Greater Manchester and joined a demo outside Styal a few years ago.
Cool ✊. This was the info from yesterday -
"Just a heads up for an upcoming action.
Another man has just been placed in Downview women's prison. This was meant to have stopped. There are also a few other men still in women's prisons that were never moved out when Conservatives changed the policy.
Northern Radfem Network are organising a mass protest at all women's prisons around the country on the same day. Date TBC soon. Nearest in the North West is HMP Styal which is very close to Manchester Airport.
I'll pass on the dates as soon as it's confirmed if anyone would like to attend.
If anyone has any contacts with women's groups other than WRN that are close to a women's prison, please could you ask them to contact @femnorthern if they are interested in joining in.
We'll be working along the same model as we did when we were representing KPSS."
Hey Shauna and Sarah, Glad to hear of the planned actions over there. Best of luck.
Thank you and thanks for your sterling work compiling all this "ammo" 🫶✊💪
Thank you! I'll keep an eye out and Hope I can make it on the day.
I'm not on X either and would very much want to be part of this too-id appreciate a heads up if you can find any info?many thank yous😘
A travesty letting make bodies into female prisons..
It starts with compulsory pronoun sharing and ends with men being accepted as women: https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/escalation-of-commitment-to-a-losing
Yes, the pronoun fascism is the start.
https://georgeqtyrebyter.substack.com/p/the-singular-they-is-not
Subjecting women to prison rape by males has got to be a violation of the 8th ammendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
No one is fighting for these women where are the damn feminists? Silent crickets 👉👉👉👉Gloria Stineman hello!!!???
https://womensliberationfront.org/our-work
Unfortunately alot of the so called feminists are too busy helping pornsick men pick a dress to put on.
I'm a grifter because I mentioned Colin Wright? What a rude thing to say! My reply to you was not rude and does not merit rudeness.
Please share the dictionary definition that you think supports your bizarre statement that a castrated male ceases to be male or that a woman without ovaries or with non-working ovaries ceases to be female. I've never seen a definition that says that older women are no longer female. Maybe that's not what you're trying to say, but it seems like it is.
Are you referring to this earlier statement of mine?
"You, and grifters like Wright, can peddle your own definitions -- but it ain't biology."
https://caroldansereau.substack.com/p/males-pour-into-womens-prisons-as/comment/64296090
You might try putting your comments in the relevant thread -- this one of yours is at the top level. Though Substack is partly to blame -- too easy to mistake a top level for a lower one when commenting.
But I think I was sort of careful to differentiate between you and Wright -- he's the grifter, not you, for peddling definitions that are flatly contradicted by more reputable sources. Unless you're trying to make money out of peddling the same bogus definitions as he is? But I've quoted the standards elsewhere here, though as a point of reference:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
But it's not necessary to say that "a castrated male ceases to be male" --it's how definitions work. You think it's necessary to say, in the definition for teenager, that someone who's had their 20th birthday is no longer a teenager? It's implicit in the definition -- if someone isn't 13 to 19 then they simply don't qualify. Try thinking about this Wikipedia article on definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
The biological definitions stipulate that "produces gametes" (present tense) is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the terms "male" and "female". The same way that the definition for "teenager" stipulates that "being 13 to 19" is the "necessary and sufficient condition" to be "counted as a referent" of the term "teenager".
But y'all might have some interest in this Wiley Online Library article, by a trio of reputable biologists, that underlines the point:
Wiley: "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles ....
Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it maybe a life-history stage. 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."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- pass into and out of the sex categories depending on whether they meet the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership -- i.e., having functional gonads.
This particular article deals with the issue of men (males) identifying as women (ie transwomen) being incarcerated with women (ie females). As noted in the article a majority of these transwomen are still anatomically intact males.
So how does the definition of sex you cite relate to this particular issue?
Good question, though the answer turns on the more fundamental question of what it takes to qualify as males and females in the first place. Which the definitions I've quoted speak direct and unequivocally to: i.e., no gonads, no sex. Period.
As you say, if somewhat indirectly, some of those transwomen -- i.e., those who've had "gender affirming surgery 🙄" -- are NOT males, they're sexless eunuchs. Arguably, prisons and toilets should be segregated by penises and vaginas, or reasonable facsimiles thereof.
Carol's more or less justified argument is largely against the prospect of "intact males" in women's prisons raping the women inmates. Which is precluded if they're castrated first. A relevant quote from her post:
CD: "According to the guard 'once the precedent was set that men can pretend to be women and get into the women's prison, it was like that door opened, and there was a flood of men trying to get over to the women's prison.' ..."
Kinda think the number of "applicants" would be greatly reduced if they had to first cut off their dicks and balls.
That this gross abuse of women is being allowed to happen in allegedly "developed "countries makes me incandescent with rage !! Anyone who supports this horror ,for any reason is,at best , an abject COWARD ,at worst a woman hating ,predatory MONSTER. There can no longer be ANY EXCUSE for promoting or supporting this abhorrent ideology ,as the evidence of harm to women becomes ever greater and more visible. Progressive ?? It's state sanctioned medieval TORTURE and should NEVER be permitted in ANY civilized society. There will surely be a special place in hell for the architects of this misogynistic ,homophobic,anti human movement. Thank you for speaking up . Keep fighting x
Thank you for your thoughtful article.
I think the concept of “coercive control” has merit when discussing so called “consensual sex” in the context of males and females sharing prison cells. That is, the implicit threat of (physical) violence will be enough to make a woman “consent” to sex in this context. Consequently there may be no evidence of physical harm. Being in prison is already a coercive situation for a prisoner (even if in this case it’s (hopefully) justified coercion). A female having to share a cell with a male, who is (with vanishingly few exceptions) going to be much stronger than her, with a much greater ability and propensity to inflict physical violence, adds another completely unjustified layer of coercion. Furthermore, the majority of male prisoners, including the ones who claim to identify as women, have been incarcerated for violent offences. By contrast the majority of female prisoners have been incarcerated for nonviolent offences.
I have heard the argument that women prisoners should “share the burden” of sexual violence, because some male prisoners are violated by fellow inmates who are stronger and more violent. I’m afraid two wrongs don’t make a right - rather the whole concept of cell-sharing needs to be addressed.
For anyone who finds it hard to grasp the idea that males are stronger and faster than females, these graphics explain it very powerfully: http://www.boysvswomen.com/
Wonderful, complete article. Thank you, Carol!
Couldn't agree more! I'm away far away on Skye Scotland or I'd be outside those prisons with you all.
It's starting to turn around-much too late for the women locked in with predatory men right now,much too late for the women already raped and beaten (yes,some jailed women have been beaten badly by these men).
I'm sick and tired of the screeching about trans being so precious,sparkly and gentle-how many school shootings now?
How many trantifa lunatics?
I genuinely believe the cross sex hormones cannot be tolerated and therefore send both men and woman stark staring insane.
It used to be that there would perhaps be a pregnancy once a decade,usually an 'affair' with a guard,and consensual although wrong in so so many ways.
As you point out,the self same people who used to champion women's rights have swept them all aside for men-i wouldn't have believed we would end up here,not in a month of Sundays but here we are and enough was enough 10 years ago.
This whole shambles needs put to bed,for good
Such important work. Thank you for your research and clear articulation of this issue. The degree to which gender zealots deny these harms is maddening, and the persistence with which many others choose to look away is disheartening. More and more, I get the feeling that female experience -- whether on the playing field or behind bars -- just doesn't matter to most people, women as well as men, if it conflicts with what any male wants.
These policies are possibly incentivizing violent sex offenders and killers of women. Any long prison term served in a women’s facility is a dream come true for these most violent offenders. They’ll be safe and surrounded by women they can easily intimidate into obedience. It’s win-win for them.
I was a liberal for most of my life, but I would be more than happy to vote for actual fascists if they would execute every male prisoner who has transferred into a Women's prison and every politician and bureaucrat who had a hand in enabling it to happen.
Speaking of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, I was impressed by FAIR's campaign against the excesses of trans activism. For example, I was glad to see FAIR challenge the California Department of Education's preferred pronoun policy and its refusal to inform parents when their kids adopt a trans identity at school. That occurred several years before the latter policy became the law in the State of California.
Then I discovered that FAIR has a high tolerance for anti-gay religious intolerance.
Last year, FAIR platformed a member of its advisory board, Princeton's Professor Robert P. George, on the occasion of his receipt of the Religious Freedom Institute’s 2023 Defender of Religious Freedom Award.
Whatever else Professor George may be, he is also a seasoned right-wing Catholic anti-choice and anti-gay activist. [1] This is part of what he said in his acceptance speech before the Religious Freedom Institute:
"And here at home, we stand up for the rights of the Evangelical Christian baker or wedding planner threatened with legal sanctions for honoring his or her conscientious belief in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife . . ." [2]
When pressed to explain how an organization that professes to oppose intolerance could place a proponent of religious intolerance on its board of advisors and in effect platform his anti-gay ideology, FAIR's response was disingenuous, passive and amoral.
Here is how Supreme Court Associate Justice Sotomayor characterized Professor George's variety of religious freedom in her dissent in the 2023 case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (600 U.S. 575):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.
Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).
Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ibid.
“What a difference five years makes.” Carson v. Makin, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 5). And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.
Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner’s religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent. [2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral of the story is that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
=====================================================================
[1] Kirkpatrick, David D. "The Conservative Big Thinker." The New York Times Magazine. 16 December 2009. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html
[2] George, Robert P. "Championing Religious Freedom: ‘We Must Preserve Our Unity’ Going Beyond Political Disputes." National Catholic Register. 4 November 2023. https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/championing-religious-freedom-rfi-address-2023
[3] Justitia. U.S. Supreme Court. Dissent (Sotomayor). 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/600/21-476/#opinions
You seem to have lost sight of an important distinction which the Court recognized: refusing to bake a wedding cake that celebrates gay marriage is not the same as refusing to serve gay customers. If the baker had refused to sell anything to gay customers, he would have been found to be violating their civil rights, but baking a cake for them was seen as artistic expression, not just straight forward commerce. Not forcing him to do this would be the same as not forcing a black commercial musician to write a song celebrating the Ku Klux Klan or an atheist musician to write a Christian hymn. These are artistic expressions, and forcing them to do this would be violating their consciences and compelling speech, both of which violate the First Amendment. The baker's views are that gay marriage is against his religious belief, and if we can't respect that, then the First Amendment is meaningless for all of us.
The difference between selling tickets to the general public for a performance and being commanded to perform for someone.
I defer to Justice Sotomayor's more learned analysis of this case, including her persuasive argument that it was wrongly decided on First Amendment grounds.
I didn't quote the rest of Professor George's acceptance speech, but it reveals that he certainly isn't inclined to stop at discriminating against gays on legal grounds in cases of supposed "artistic expression." He wants to create a religious apartheid in which gays can be excluded from a wide range of business concerns that are traditionally secular in purpose:
"“We insist on the right to shape and run our institutions — be they schools, hospitals, food pantries, shelters, adoption agencies, rehab centers, or what have you — in line with the tenets of our faiths . . .”
"Or what have you . . ." is where George shows his true aims. That Christian baker? If he had his druthers, he wouldn't sell a gay person a bagel.
It was reported recently that George is hard at work ginning up legal theories to support the notion that personhood begins at conception. If the court were to accept that, the theory would end abortions on the grounds they violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.
> "Exchanges with various friends, family members, and acquaintances over the past year have made that commitment to ignorance quite clear."
I can sympathize. And, as you've suggested, many others are in the same boat. Like telling Muslims that Muhammad was a pedophile.
But a thorough summary of the problem. Though this bit of yours, an article of faith of your own, is part of the problem:
Carol: "Sex is real. It is binary and immutable. And it matters."
Yes, quite agree on "real", "binary", and "matters". However, "immutable" is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexLESS eunuchs -- hardly "immutable".
See these reputable biological journals encyclopedias and dictionaries for specifics:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
No, the definition of biological sex that I have read evolutionary biologist Colin Wright share is not to have "functional" gonads of one sex or the other, but to have a body set up to produce either sperm or ova. Going by your definition, a woman would cease to be female once she has gone through menopause or if she had her ovaries removed. No serious person has ever said that older women or women who've had their ovaries removed are no longer female, nor are castrated males no longer males. They are just that: castrated males.
> "the definition of biological sex that I have read evolutionary biologist Colin Wright share is ..."
Who the hell is Colin Wright? A fraud, a grifter, a scientifically and philosophically illiterate opportunist if the truth be known. You think his "opinions" should trump definitions published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology? You might actually try reading thinking about what they're saying.
> "Going by your definition, a woman would cease to be female once she has gone through menopause or if she had her ovaries removed."
So what? Are you "offended"? Think we should "be kind" and pander to women's vanity?
Too many people -- mostly women -- have turned the sexes into "immutable identities 🙄" based on some "mythic essences" -- as philosopher Jane Clare Jones once put it. But the biological definitions aren't designed for that purpose -- they're designed to categorize millions of species, and to understand sexual reproduction.
You, and grifters like Wright, can peddle your own definitions -- but it ain't biology.
Colin Wright has a Ph.D in evolutionary biology. And in a fortuitous piece of good timing, he just posted this today: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/understanding-the-sex-binary
Note that his definition of male and female is similar to the Oxford Dictionary's: "an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary." The principal difference is that the Oxford Dictionary definition omits the "organized, through development" part. Dictionaries, by design, are intended to produce one-sentence definitions, which therefore omit certain details. Wright's definition is more complete, and it addresses the issue raised by Ms. Mann, explaining how a woman whose ovaries are no longer productive is still a woman, and a castrated man is still male.
Name-calling -- e.g., "fraud, grifter" -- is not argument. If you have reason to believe he is wrong, you should be able to identify his errors with specificity, not resort to baseless smearing.
Thanks for firing a shot across Colin's bow 😉🙂:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/understanding-the-sex-binary/comment/64374226
But I have, in fact, "identified his errors with specificity" -- he's just too gutless to address them. You might consider posting these definitions over there for reference:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
👍🙂 Just finished commenting on it here -- I'm banned on RLS, and for the next 98 years ... 😉🙂:
https://dredles.substack.com/p/non-e-giusto-its-not-fair/comment/64371771
In particular, some of my objections to his rather "fraudulent" claims:
Wright: "The 'sex binary' refers to the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female—and that these categories refer to individuals whose primary sex organs are organized around the production of either sperm (male) or ova (female). The 'sex binary' does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are."
Absolutely NO reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary says ANYTHING at all about "organized around the production" -- they ALL say "produces gametes", right now, not 10 years ago or maybe in 10 years time. See:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Steersman is a lunatic troll. No one should respond to him.
LoL. "When you’re losing an argument…play the [troll] card!" -- "a tool of the intellectually weak and lazy ..."
https://x.com/adamcarolla/status/1421138069026074628
You've got diddly-squat there mate in the way of well-evidenced rebuttals and counterarguments. Barking like trained seals and demented parrots in response to the quite unscientific claptrap peddled by grifters and frauds like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne.
Not only are you wrong but you veer off into the incomprehensible and vitriolic as if it was a safe place to hide your ignorance.
It's not.
LoL. Exactly how am I wrong? Where's your argument and evidence?
Because the Bible -- or grifters like Colin Wright -- tell you so?
Are the definitions peddled by Wright the same as those in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries? Do tell ... 🙄
Wow, 🛞MAN - you really are a piece of work, aren't you? "pander to women's vanity"? 😂🤡 Incels gonna incel, I guess - even when their shrivelled ole bawbags resemble rabbit slippers 😂🥀
LoL -- cut to the quick I am. Ask of me tomorrow and you'll find me a grave man ... 😉🙂
Though I can hardly count the number of "women" who've blocked or banned me for promoting the biological definitions and their consequences. Many seem to "think" I'm "dehumanizing" them thereby -- prima facie evidence of many women turning the sexes into "immutable 🙄 identities" based on some "mythic essences". Vanity writ large -- and based on illusion to boot. For details, you might read Jane Clare Jones for her comment about "bun-fights over mythic essences":
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
As for your "piece of work", I prefer "a piece of work in progress" ... 😉🙂 Apropos of which, you might have some interest in my post on "The Imperative of Categories" -- particularly since, if I'm not mistaken, your Twitter handle had been "Terfy" and you get star billing here 😉🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-imperative-of-categories
I would have thought this was obvious, but it's biological sex that's immutable, and that's what counts. If some bloke cuts his balls off, it's not biology at work; it's human culture.
Did you bother to even read the definitions I linked to?
Those sources all SAY "produces gametes" -- present tense. Which means that those not currently doing so -- like blokes who've cut their balls off -- simply don't qualify as male or female; they're sexless.
You might also try reading some biology, these two articles by philosopher of science Paul Griffiths in particular:
"What are biological sexes?" https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
And:
"Sex is real: Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other": https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity