IntenseDebate - GammaChai

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - James Palmer: Why I'm ... · 0 replies · +1 points

> government could focus on providing the infrastructure to support the modes of transport that people self-evidently prefer to use.

It is sensible for government to follow preferences. And preferences are not independent of the infrastructure in place. Better cycle paths mean more people preferring to cycle. Better parking means more people preferring to drive. Easier fare structure and wider connections mean more people preferring to take the bus.

The problem is that preferences are not self-evident at all. You have to go and actually ask people. What people do right now is not what they would do if they could choose their preferred improvements.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Rebecca Lowe: CNN’s ... · 0 replies · +1 points

"They also relate to sex-specific concerns around bodily privacy and security, as recognised in the Equality Act. They relate to matters of fairness, too. "

Please elaborate how those concerns are directly linked to the "realities of biological sex" in the same way as having a cervix is, as opposed to being either linked to the perceived-as sex or statistically correlated. Which often means there is a sizable overlap of concerns between the biological sexes that cannot be neatly divided into two groups.

Individuals have specific needs and concerns. Grouping people by biological sex is often not the best possible way to address them.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Crispin Blunt and Sue ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The majority of the time the decision of whether we refer to someone as he or she is based on their self-identification or the way they present. We don't usually go around asking people to show their genitals nor take their DNA. Not just because it's impractical but also because in most situations what people care about is your actions and behaviour, not what is hidden in your trousers or cells.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Crispin Blunt and Sue ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Then let's talk about the innate cost to society of those social norms and enforced conformity, too.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Crispin Blunt and Sue ... · 0 replies · +1 points

DNA is, in fact, not perfectly binary. Enlightened scientists, both here and in Poland, know that.

DNA also makes no statement on the societal conventions of which person gets which legal rights, or to use which facilities.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Crispin Blunt and Sue ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Is a bearded woman allowed in a female changing room? Surely yes.
Is a woman with psychological issues allowed in a female changing room? Again, surely yes.
So why bring up those points?

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Danny Kruger: The dist... · 0 replies · +1 points

What gets lost among the arguments around sex/gender is, what are the reasons why we differentiate between male and female (and sometimes intersex and other cases) in the first place?

The reason why a medical form might ask the sex of a patient (differences in anatomy and statistical risk and treatment outcomes) is different from the reason why we might have male and female prisons, the reason for male and female public bathrooms, the reason for male and female sports, the reason for male and female dress codes, why an eyewitness might talk about having seen a woman or man, or why we put M/F (and maybe X) on passports.

If you make a single distinction, say based on chromosomes, you gain convenience and clarity (relatively, as intersex variants are biological fact) and sacrifice decision quality and some freedom. Also, the more prominent the distinction, the higher the risk that it will be applied in cases where it is not relevant.

No law can override the biological reality of chromosomes, genitals and sexual reproduction. And everything that is in law is a societal choice.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - What does the data say... · 0 replies · +1 points

Of course the younger women affected by your reluctance to promote them can now rightfully claim "that opportunities had not been made available to them because of their gender."

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Victoria Hewson: The l... · 0 replies · +1 points

Chromosomes are a biological fact.

Gendered pronouns are a social convention, and don't always match chromosomes.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Peter Ainsworth: The t... · 0 replies · +1 points

Surely an "earnings bonus over lifetime" takes into account any "lost" (i.e simply non-existing) earnings during university years.

And while the state pays many teachers and medical staff it does not pay arbitrary sums. As people can move in and out of those positions there are market forces at play.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with GammaChai

People I'm following

GammaChai