Read on Twitter
One reflection on my long discussion w Helen Pluckrose - she aims to mark out a "rational middle ground" position.
She says not only shld we not expect organisations to refer to the sexes plainly as "men" & "women", we should also not ask them to use "male" & "female" clearly.
She says not only shld we not expect organisations to refer to the sexes plainly as "men" & "women", we should also not ask them to use "male" & "female" clearly.
She says that individuals can use their own words but should not "bully" institutions to have a clearly understood set of words for male & female people, even though the law deals with sex, men, women, male, female, same sex, opposite sex.
This is similar to judgment in my case which said I could argue against TW in womens sports, prisons, single sex services but not by saying that they are male.
Obviously I disagree. I think we need clear words for something as elemental as the two sexes, even if we choose to politely gloss over it in many social & professional contexts to not make a trans identifying person uncomfortable.
Anyway, the point is, at one point in these wider debates there was a proposal - give up "woman" for sex; make it the social word for gender. Keep "female " as the word for sex. As if that was the rational middle ground .
And yet here we are now with the "rational middle ground" saying we can& #39;t have female either.
The right answer is not the fence straddling mid point between where we are & whatever today& #39;s demand is. There is not a negotiation to be had with people making unreasonable demands.
The right answer is not the fence straddling mid point between where we are & whatever today& #39;s demand is. There is not a negotiation to be had with people making unreasonable demands.
There does need to be an open, normal policy discussion which reconciles everyone& #39;s rights. It needs to be based in universal human rights and the material reality that women are adult human females. That is the rational middle ground.
