Labour discussing plans to include trans women on women only shortlists

No, it's about yourself funnily enough.

You are describing yourself immensely well though. Well done!

I personally disagree: it’s the current year, why are they not having trans only shortlists as well?

No, they are a man if they have a penis.

The first line from the American psychiatric association ....

Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify.

That’s transgender

Do you accept the entirety of the APA article, or do you just want to pick the bits you like and dismiss any bits you don't?

So you would accept that a trans man who gets phalloplastic surgery is a man then?

Do you accept the entirety of the APA article, or do you just want to pick the bits you like and dismiss any bits you don't?

The question that you should be asking is why do we have these sexist short-lists in a democracy to begin with?

Neither women nor trans nor any other group of people should have short-lists in parliament.

Depends the apa is susceptible to lobby groups and as such they have added some strange things to their DSM

No. They still have XY chromosomes.

Yeah. I'm happy with that definition. It perfectly describes the delusion.

And what is this I keep seeing about "assigned gender"? Its not like the doctor has two slots for female and ten for male, is it? He doesn't assign you a gender. You already have a gender.

So if that makes it unreliable, why did you cite it?

Because they are the number one resource after independent research papers followed by the ICD listings.

"I'm happy with the article. Here's a bit I'm not happy with."

Assigned gender refers to what the doctor delivering the baby said - boy or girl. And no, that isn't always straightforward.

That you keep pushing the essentialist argument is pretty demonstrative of why this "debate" never goes anywhere.

(I'm assuming you mean XX?)

This is one of the most blatant cases of moving the goalposts I've ever seen. You've literally just claimed "they are a man if they have a penis", and now you're claiming it's actually about chromosomes instead? So which is it?

Also, it's long been recognised that using chromosomes to judge sex or gender is problematic. Even outside of trans issues, there are women who are XY or single-X, men who are XXY or XYY, and several other rarer conditions. This is a large part of the reason why athletics stopped sex verification by chromosome testing in 1996 - there were simply too many exceptions.

Assigned sex. And yes it is largely based on penis yes/no, but largely that will reflect further biology making someone male or female. Some exceptions, or overlap in sex traits, do not imply people can go "oh let me change my gender, oh and btw gender is sex so my biology is suddenly changed".

Learn the difference between sex and gender people.

You are quite right, however, medical exceptions do not mean someone who is in fact XY can say well sorry I am XY. The fact that there is some evidence that humans are on a spectrum of the several sex traits we have, does not mean there are 7 billion sexes in the world. 2 sexes for reproduction.

If you want to have 7 billion genders fine, people can be whatever they want. But in areas where sex segregation matters, you cannot force yourself over it by "muh gender". And sex very much matters for women's rights. Sex very much matters in women's sports. In women's shelters, to name a few key ones.

I don't really object to the argument that there are two things, sex and gender, and that transgender people are cases of the two not matching up. I think it's often used over-simplistically, but it avoids an essentialist lens, which in my view is the important thing.