massacre

TIL that "Garcia" is an "exotic" name!

Is there a scientific answer to this? I believe the answer is only a "qualified" answer. Like I mentioned - any 100% answer cannot be correct. Even "common sense" answers of "I know what a biological woman is" are wrong in several circumstances. I'm not a researcher, only a layperson with a decent amount of of biochem and related coursework under my belt. I get the subtle comment about me not knowing enough to confirm or deny it. I'll say sure to that one. I'm not an expert.

I question why there's a debate at all. There are really only 2 "platforms" of concern apparently from all political discourse I've read: 1) Bathroom usage and 2) Sports. I would like to change your comment this is just what the scientific method has shown to add my own part that you yourself captured: in approximately half of the population (statisticians will forgive me for "half" when it's a variant ratio over time of women to men (I think 105% of men born to women born).

But let's take that half the population and pull a number out of the hat to say 99.99% of all people born have an obvious sex assignable at birth (via whatever means). OK, but that leaves 1 in 10,000 as the outlier to which the UK is now attempting to apply a law. Something close to ~370K babies are born daily. That's 37 people per day world-wide and my ballpark percentage is egregiously conservative. 13,500 people in this ambigous state world-wide per year.

These are people, they have rights and deserve to live life. They should have access to toilets and education. It's certainly expected in Western societies - you would expect NO LESS for the 99.99% who are clearly identifyable by external/internal/microscopic means. So ultimately all of this is just used to marginalized an already tiny population of people before we even consider gender role, brain phenotypes, hormone production / lack of production, etc. I think it's fair to say "some people are born different, many of them don't realize what is "different" until they reach puberty and start to notice "hey, I'm not like the other girls/boys", perhaps even coming to terms with a stark realization that terrifies them "well shit, I guess I'm trans". If you think that Trans people make certain Cis people feel uncomfortable, put yourself in the Trans person's shoes! I doubt any one comes to that internal understanding lightly.

The ONLY reason to treat trans people or even "debate" what sex they are (without them getting any say in that!) is to marginalize them. The VAST VAST majority of humanity does not fall into this situation, and I'd argue are almost to exclusion not impacted by it personally. The notion may make them feel uncomfortable. Perhaps even physically concerned in some cases. But what's to debate? That a trans woman should not use a female bathroom stall? Lesbians walk girls locker rooms the world over - should they not be able to go to the bathroom with other "biological" women? By the way, even that is easily solveable with lockable individual/family toilets/showers

So, I guess after this long diatribe (and thanks for sticking with me here) I would say, it's almost completely irrelevent what science "shows" here as any "definitive" answer requires assumptions or exclusion of a small portion of the population to be definitive and the only purpose of the "debate" is to shunt an already fragile population into further inhumanity.

By the way, if science somehow today immeidately said X criteria is definitively a biological female, to what end would that information be any more useful than our passionless view of dogs or other animals? The answer? To exlude anyone not X. It's the inevitable and only conclusion.

Ninja edit: "answer" to "conclusion" in last sentence

Necromancy takes time...

No problem - good call-out and you're correct as far as I'm aware.

There is a fairly broad spectrum of answers to this. My point was that there is no neat/definitive answer based strictly on production of OVA, external genetalia, Uterous, ovaries, hormonal levels, hair manifestation on the body, etc. I'm not sure what value there is in discussing specifics. If people add "it's my opinion" to a comment, then that's fine - it's an opinion. But when it's pushed as "everyone agrees" or "scientific basis" it gets into very loaded territory.

Edit: BTW, I'm not accusing you of presenting it as scientific fact. Just trying to cut through to a common ground understanding that anyone can have an opinion on this, but once it's "legal" it becomes exceedingly murky to define outside of opinion.

Opinion is a whole other ballgame. Glad to support it as an opinion. And logically that's where this law is going to reside... not in any science. I suppose, upon reflection, that is my underlying message.

XX/XY was typo, yes.

again "not always" is the answer to your last note" we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning. - there are individuals born with both sex organs. My point is that this is all exceeding complex and any simple answer is being used to drive another narrative than science.

No? You've just invalidated your own original argument by acknowledging you would add the "born with" despite the fact that I said there are women who were NOT born with the reproductive apparatus organized to support production of the large gamete (ova).

In other words, your own argument is not self-supporting. So I don't feel I need to elaborate further than the point here is that OP is saying "define biological female" is defeatingly complex and requires assumptions to even proceed, and even then any answer doesn't land in the "definitive" answer you probably want.

Many women have their uterus and/or ovaries removed before or during child bearing years due to complications, cancer, etc. So, I'm sure you would change this to say born with to define it. I will say this: not all women are born with this equipment, but are XY on the genotype. I won't even go into the complexities of the genetic side of the house....

I came to say this. And not flippantly. Each one of these takes a dive into the documentation to resolve. Sometimes they are related and you can solve some issues with one change, but each one is a challenge to be solved.

OP, focus on Security first, Errors second, and warnings third. Often the warnings are not a huge deal to having an operational nextcloud, but might impact performance or excessive logging for example.

That demon core pic gives me all kinds of 2^nd^ hand anxiety