Kalbear

You'll have to ask @Heartofice why he believes what he believes. That's certainly not what I believe, if you're referring to me as a cool gotcha. They were the one wanting to refer to biological sex as a euphemism for sex assigned at birth. But yes, I would imagine that it shouldn't be that weird to think that if you have your genitalia changed you would not be subject to illnesses specific to that genitalia. If you don't have ovaries it would be difficult to get ovarian cancer. Is that a real gotcha then? My point all along is that if you're going to view certain characteristics as defining biological sex then you need to also assume that the lack of them also implies a lack of that biological sex. I don't personally view it as so easily cut and dried, and as usual making things that are complicated simple makes things stupid and more wrong.

Oh come on, it was only known by some rando people like *checks notes* Led Zeppelin

But that's not the only thing they're doing - they're also saying that people who want (by your terminology) biologically sexed people of a specific sex to treat you, you can get that. Which is obviously discriminatory, and was lauded as a good move by folks on this thread. So are you going around and asking what gonads people had at birth then? And remember, this is the 'common sense' good conversation that you said they had. Why are you so cagey about it now? Because I know from experience that the phenotype of the people in these areas matters a LOT more to many people in making them feel safe than the gonads. Which is why I think the gonad argument is so utterly stupid.

It's cute that you think that, so please - don't brush over it! So you're against what the NHS has done, then? Because they're certainly not doing that. We're not talking about forcing trans women into rape shelters; we're talking about your hypothetical, where you make a female only space (where female is defined by you as having the ability to at one point produce female gametes) as an important thing. Try and stay focused, please! And we're talking about not just the people who are allowed in but the people who work there, which is the analogy of the NHS restricting who can and can't be seen by whom. I would probably not be entirely okay with that, but given there are a whole lot of restrictions on who can and can't be admitted into those shelters as they are I'm not sure that it's as massive a problem as you make out to be. More importantly, are you okay with letting in trans men because they are, per your criteria, biologically women?

So follow that through. Why are the gametes of the people working there hugely important? What is specifically threatening or dangerous or problematic such that the potential to produce gametes specifically matter? By that token, would you think it would be acceptable to that shelter to have a trans man there?

They should probably mention that as one of their goals, then. ETA: I also don't think that it's clear that that's where they'll declare victory. Given this Israeli government and their goals I don't think it's really clear when they'll stop at all, and it is significantly in this government's interests to prolong it for as long as they can.

Yeah, the whole idea that liberalism was somehow poisoned and people are afraid of it because it was made into a boogeyman when it was otherwise perfectly dandy seems to ignore the actual viewpoints of Americans. There have been a whole lot of chances for the US to show how incredibly liberal and progressive it could be if only it was unfettered, and it always ends up not being nearly the case that people think it'll be. The latest iteration of this is that Trump of all people was able to energize voters in a whole lot of places and significantly increase voter turnout in a whole lot of categories.

So how does 'eradicate Hamas' do that? Hamas isn't in Iran. Hamas' leaders aren't in Iran. Hurting Hamas doesn't harm Iran in any meaningful way. And why would punishing Iran stop Hamas in the future? It certainly hasn't so far.

I'm not the one talking about biological women without defining it. I know you keep trying to avoid explaining what you mean though - it's a lot easier to be vague when discriminating. And why is that? Why are female only spaces, where female is apparently defined by gonads, important? @Heartofice explicitly did so. You can go back and look at their posts if you like. Perhaps you'll want a biological definition of 'celebration' that involves the celebratory gonads; if that's the case, feel free to substitute whatever terminology you would prefer when someone is happy about something happening and is telling people about it.

Go on - take that further. Extrapolate where that needs to go.

And is that the reasoning that you're using when celebrating the NHS decision to allow trans people to be segregated and discriminated against?

It is remarkable to me that folks are still okay with the nhs decision and have now switched to the apparent argument that it is perfectly reasonable for people to have a religious objection to being seen by a doctor with gametes that do not match their gametes. Or that it is reasonable to segregate people because of either their gametes or their ability at some future time to have them. I would love to understand the logic there.

It is not implicit in the goal of eradicating hamas. It isn't even necessary depending on what other things you're willing to do. Which they aren't doing, so that is either a failure in policy or not the policy. But it is not clear anyway, so again you're about empty platitudes and symbols that can be misinterpreted. Same thing - empty slogans for the win. So they should be able to leave now, then. Good to know. It isn't obvious. Why would you allow hamas to exist in the west bank? Or Lebanon? What does operational capacity actually mean? The ability to do another 10-7, the ability to launch cheap rocket attacks, what? It's all vague and subject to declare victory or not based on anything you want. Another war on terror.

Arguably apartheid is not since it's against other DEMOCRATIC states. And there exist no democratic states in existence right now that have anything like that. Mostly, however, I think it's real clear that this will be abused anyway, because the definition of antisemitism before this was being abused and this expands that.

I think this is a good place to start as to what people see as problematic: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism