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't have female either.
The right answer is not the fence straddling mid point between where we are & whatever today'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'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'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.
