Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[theprestige]

That seems like it would make for a much more useful and flexible data set.

Useful for what purpose? The government could include questions like "bunch or fold?" and "have you ever seen Citizen Kane?"

I tend to the opinion that the government shouldn't collect data it's not going to report on. And that the reporting it does should have a good reason first.

If Congress holds hearings about the problems plaguing the nation, and determine from expert testimony and public opinion that more data needs to be gathered on a specific subject, then yes, Congress should direct that such data be gathered. Likewise if the President needs more information in order to execute national policy.

I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of gathering vast swaths of data simply because it might turn out to be informative or useful at some future time. But I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of the government conducting surveys just to make convenient data sets for future academics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Useful for what purpose? The government could include questions like "bunch or fold?" and "have you ever seen Citizen Kane?"

I tend to the opinion that the government shouldn't collect data it's not going to report on. And that the reporting it does should have a good reason first.

Consider a couple of situations that might make sense.

Funding for community health centers (which frequently have a fair bit of contraception and prenatal services for low income) might use the size of the female population combined with income. For that, it's sex that is relevant.

On the other hand, something like affirmative action and equal opportunity employment criteria might be more interested in gender for tracking employment stats in the area.

 

[Meadmaker]

Agreed, though I'd argue that it is generally worthwhile to collect both sex at birth (male, female, intersex) and gender at present (drop down menu, I guess).

I wonder what the difference is in those Facebook gender options between

trans

and

trans*

 

[theprestige]

Consider a couple of situations that might make sense.

Funding for community health centers (which frequently have a fair bit of contraception and prenatal services for low income) might use the size of the female population combined with income. For that, it's sex that is relevant.

On the other hand, something like affirmative action and equal opportunity employment criteria might be more interested in gender for tracking employment stats in the area.

Yep, both of those sound like sensible reasons to me.

But.

I'd want to see a positive argument, before saying the government *should* start collecting this data. By which I mean, a clear demonstration that there is a significant shortfall in public policy due to lack of data on this question, that can be addressed once the data is gathered.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep, both of those sound like sensible reasons to me.

But.

I'd want to see a positive argument, before saying the government *should* start collecting this data. By which I mean, a clear demonstration that there is a significant shortfall in public policy due to lack of data on this question, that can be addressed once the data is gathered.

Fair enough.

 

[zooterkin]

A slightly long summary of where we are now, from a feminist point of view.
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

 

[tyr_13]

Of course they said that. Do you think they are going to publicly state that fear of a social media backlash was the reason? The research was only vetoed when the preliminary data indicated that the number of transitioners was large than claimed.
The decision is being appealed and if funding can be raised will go right through to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. The last review was refused on procedural grounds, not on basic argument.

It was denied when he applied to change his methodology. The change in methodology was what was objected to. His claims on what his prelim 'research' showed is just his claim. Secret evidence isn't compelling.

I know what is happening through first-hand experience. In more than 20 years teaching in universities, I have never seen anything like the current attempts to subvert research and teaching to conform to an ideological agenda, and to suppress academic analysis and debate by any means including smearing, ostracism, harassment, no-platforming, censorship and even threats of violence. I've never experienced a situation before when even those of us not directly involved have to set up closed mailing lists to discuss what is happening to others because people are too scared to discuss it openly.

Unless we can fight back against this (which at this point means fighting in courts) it's unlikely any research on transgender issues can be trusted, because no research or analysis that doesn't fit the ideological narrative is allowed.

Yes, yes, there is secret evidence 'they' don't want you to know about and the evidence to the contrary is actually evidence for the conspiracy. Never heard that one before.

If his data was so supportive of his hypothesis then he could have just continued the study he as already granted resources for (even though 'they' won't allow such research?) and then followed up. But he didn't, probably because his prelim data wasn't supporting his desired outcome.

 

[d4m10n]

A slightly long summary of where we are now, from a feminist point of view.
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

From a fairly non-intersectional feminist POV.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[lionking]

A slightly long summary of where we are now, from a feminist point of view.
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

You are braver than me. Merely linking this would make you an oppressor in many minds.

 

[Manger Douse]

Transwomen face possible women's rugby ban over safety concerns

...there is likely to be “at least a 20-30% greater risk” of injury when a female player is tackled by someone who has gone through male puberty. ...trans women retain “significant” physical advantages over biological women even after they take medication

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...tential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns

I'm amazed that some people think it might be otherwise tbh

 

[The Atheist]

Transwomen face possible women's rugby ban over safety concerns

Good!

I'm amazed that some people think it might be otherwise tbh

Same. It's a clear safety issue.

While we're on sports, Samoa has a slightly different take, with a guy who was a soccer star as a teenager, then transitioned to female, still appeared for the men's team in 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaiyah_Saelua

 

[Emily's Cat]

A slightly long summary of where we are now, from a feminist point of view.
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/11/13/the-annals-of-the-terf-wars/

That was very entertaining.

 

[d4m10n]

FYSA

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1288948978088804355

 

[The Atheist]

That's priceless!

"Individuals with a cervix..."

"Women with a cervix" works neatly, because it excludes women who have had a hysterectomy, and other people who identify as women without having the biological bits.

 

[d4m10n]

"Women with a cervix" works neatly, because it excludes women who have had a hysterectomy, and other people who identify as women without having the biological bits.

Alas, it excludes cervically enabled folks who identify as men.

 

[Manger Douse]

Females are just so complicated compared to males:

 

[The Atheist]

Alas, it excludes cervically enabled folks who identify as men.

Fair point! I didn't think of that. Let's ensure all F->M trans have a hysterectomy in future.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. It's definitely an odd thing to see on a board dedicated to critical thinking - at least when not coming from members who are notorious for posting their own wacky pet theories.

 

[Sherkeu]

I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. It's definitely an odd thing to see on a board dedicated to critical thinking - at least when not coming from members who are notorious for posting their own wacky pet theories.

Medical professionals themselves are immune because they need to speak in science to do their jobs. There is NO clinical trial that is 'woke' in how it seeks out female participants.
But it seems that they are to speak differently to the public at large so that there will be 2 vocabularies in play so that no one need be de-legitimized of their chosen gender/sex identity.

 

[Manger Douse]

I honestly don't know what this push-back against medical professionals using precise terminology is all about (well, other than knee-jerk "won't someone think of the children!" transphobia), but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. It's definitely an odd thing to see on a board dedicated to critical thinking - at least when not coming from members who are notorious for posting their own wacky pet theories.

Why do you think CNN can say men, not penis havers?