SJ

The question, “What is a woman?” admits several layers of analysis: First, collectively, how do we define the English term, “woman,” in various social and legal contexts? Notice this is not strictly a scientific question. Science uses validated constructs like “female/male” to study empirical reality with collective and public operational definitions i.e. scientists for the most part know how to measure femaleness/maleness in validated methods. But notice the first question involves a philosophical choice: we have a choice about whether to define the English term “woman” to refer to the same thing as the scientific construct “female.” Historically, in English, this IS how the word was used implicitly. Because it was a useful way of using language (and still is for the most part.) The pragmatic school of philosophy asks the fundamental question of not whether a definition or concept is “true” but whether the concept is useful: the truth value cashes out in whatever is useful for your given context. And clearly the scientific context is conceptually distinct from social and legal contexts, though they obviously intersect in important ways when thinking about practical social policies like sex segregated spaces. But this is why the TRA vs GC debate is essentially pointless: each side screams at each other about “facts”; but we are not going to conclusively settle the debate about what is a woman by going out into the world with a microscope: it’s fundamentally a philosophical question which necessarily must remain unsettled as empirical facts never truly settle actual philosophical questions. The key question for society going forward is: are there new pragmatic contexts for having an additional (but not replacement) definition operate in society to accommodate passable transsexuals who blend pretty well into certain female social roles?

I'm assuming they added the "Vote Green" ribbon, because Zack Polanski, the One Jewish party leader our entire Press & UK Politicians are currently piling in on for Something something "Antisemitism" does not have a Big Hooky Nose.

Absolutely fucking insane that they are just pretending the third Muslim victim doesn’t exist. They are clearly terrified of their complete failure to control the narrative and the shit they are willing to do to regain control just mindblowing.

“Apprehending violent and dangerous criminals is a full contact and messy task which may appear shocking to observers with little experience of policing in the real world.” Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley writes to Zack Polanski.

I have asked this cheerful individual to confirm he is a man, so that I might add him to the correct columns (no names) in my running total of chaps & women who are (1) happy with men running as faux "women" and (2) go swiftly rude and abusive. I fear he may be headed for both.