I'm sure we can investigate genetic variations and hormone levels but these require blood tests: you can't assess these things just by looking as far as I know.

Simply looking at what's situated between the legs is far more convenient and pivotal in distinguishing between male or female. I'm sure we can look at other things but our genitals will never not be in the conversation.

I mean, that is largely my point. You can't assess the entirety of biology based simply on phenotypic variation. To do so is "convenient" but it is far from accurate. That is why I don't really like the phrase "biological female". It is a convenient simplification of biology to use that as a synonym for "someone born with a vagina", but we we should still recognize that the two statements do not mean the same thing, despite that convenience.

Well yes, our genes dictate our phenotype. Still, just by looking doesn't always give us complete insight into genotype since the environment can also influence someone's phenotype. The genotype-phenotype link isn't one to one.

Well a great many people like convenience and for convenience's sake, biological female means "born with a vagina". It's that simple. In a majority of instances in the day-to-day, hormone levels or genetic variations aren't going to come up and play a role.

But hey, if you wanna bust out the blood tests every time you want to assess someone's sex, who am I to stop you?

Hello all :)

My english isn't the best and I fear that my points won't come across I'd like to but I'd still like to address those who agree with Rowlings view on the subject or those who don't differentiate between gender and sex.

Contrapoints made a video about TERFs and I think it also holds alot of arguments against Rowlings Statements. Please watch it if you want to learn more about this issue. It's well made and quite entertaining too :)

You asked why I used quotations around "biological" and I explained it. You seem to have no qualms with the content of that explanation. I am not suggesting we "bust out the blood tests" to assess someone's sex, so I'm not sure where that came from. I am just saying that we should acknowledge that biology goes beyond phenotype. That seems utterly and completely uncontroversial to me. What exactly are you taking umbrage with?

And is "assessing someone's sex" something that you do often? Seems weird...

That whole introduction of that video is kinda a conversation blocker.

In what sense?

Not for me myself,but i think the tone it gives could sound like mocking for others.

Apologies. I was afraid you were going to tell me biology is make-believe. So far, nothing terribly controversial...

As for assessing sex, yes. Every day. I see someone who looks like a man or a woman, I assess their sex superficially. Of course there's chance I am wrong about my assessment but that's okay: I'm not putting money down on people's sex.

She is like the grandma that is a do gooder but does not understand the rhetoric of modern times.