How exactly do you determine who is a woman though? Because appearances alone don't cut it, and the more you pick things apart, the less you can make any hard lines. Simply put, trans women are women.
If the people running the app were determined to screen reliably they would have to require documentation, because anyone can submit any real or synthetic photograph.
You’re mistaken about the lack of “hard lines” distinguishing the sexes, though. The difference between male and female is unambiguous in biology. “Trans women” are, by definition, not women.
> The difference between male and female is unambiguous in biology. “Trans women” are, by definition, not women.
That is emphatically false. There are innumerable biological differences between men as a whole and women as a whole, and while these different factors largely correlate, they do not necessarily fit neatly into one box or the other. Is an XXY individual with a penis but undescended testes and low levels of blood testosterone and few androgen receptors "biologically" male or female? What about an XX individual with ambiguous external genitalia, high circulating testosterone, and a high number of androgen receptors? What do you make of the fact that females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are far more likely to identify as LGBT? You are oversimplifying the biology.
That said, the right to create an exclusive space is a fundamental constitutional right. En plus, for socially marginalized groups, it is a societal benefit for them to have a space exclusive to them. I support the creators of this social media app.
Those cases are worth considering, socially. But generally speaking, biology isn't defined by edge cases. There is a clear biological definition of sex, which a small percentage of examples do not fit into. That doesn't negate the existence of biological sex.
...And it would be equally bullshit to encounter someone missing a finger and start berating them. "You don't really have four fingers, biologically you're still five-fingered!"
It's appropriate to discuss generalities. It's appropriate to discuss individual cases. What is inappropriate is dismissing individual cases to come to a general conclusion, and then insist that it applies universally.
No it's appropriate to dismiss individual cases to come to general conclusions. We do this all the time with outliers. That's how we classify large sets of data. Classifications are very useful and should not be thrown away. That said you treat an individual as who they are not with generalizations. You don't say to a six fingered individual you're five fingered. But if you want to make gloves for a living you're going to sell more volume if you make five fingered gloves.
This is also in the context of trans people the vast majority are not biological outliers simply people identifying as something different to their unambiguous biological sex.
Operations engineers are engineers, just as much as other engineers. But when you’re discussing the subgroup (opseng) in specific and whether it’s a member of the overall group (engineers), it’s logical and appropriate in conversational English to refer to the subgroup by specific label, as the comment you’re replying to does.
Women can be sexed at birth as female, male, intersex, neither; women can have genes for XX, XY, XXY, etc; women can have zero or more genitalia; women can have masculine, feminine, androgynous, mixed facial bone structures.
Each of these is a valid subgroup of women which can, if necessary, be described as a subgroup. Normally, just “women” should suffice, but the app linked by this post actively excludes at least one of those subgroups from the label “women”. So it becomes necessary to discuss those subgroups by name, such as “trans women” and “black women”, in order for discourse to occur.
Generally, no; if one represents as binary gender “woman” with subgroup “trans”, it is implied and understood that they are not a member of binary gender “man”. That they are a member of subgroup “trans” is not relevant to resolving their binary gender either-or, in your example.
They might be “male at birth” or “intersex at birth” on certain medical paperwork, and those physical sex characteristic will remain unchanged in subgroup “at birth” regardless of any shift in gender or medical alterations to their present-day sex characteristics.
(To avoid any possible confusion, I’m keeping in mind that “male” is sex and “man” is gender, as this is often confused in discussion of these topics. One’s sex is a physical characteristic like one’s eye color or skin tone; most people assume that everyone has just one and that it doesn’t change, neither of which are true. One’s gender is a behavioral characteristic like accent or musical tastes; it can’t be reliably guessed from any physical characteristic, and it can change at any time, either gradually over years or all at once at a coffee shop or anywhere in between.)
You’re mistaken about the lack of “hard lines” distinguishing the sexes, though. The difference between male and female is unambiguous in biology. “Trans women” are, by definition, not women.