• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
The assumption behind the belief that there would be an increase in sex crimes was based on the belief that cis males were sex perverts and dangerous.
Click to expand...
I'd say you could replace "cis males" here with "cis and trans and other GNC males" and be somewhat closer to the original assumption. I've seen no evidence to support the conclusion that cisgender males are more sexually aggressive than other males, even though the idea strikes me as somewhat intuitive.

SuburbanTurkey said:
Anti-trans stigma is the driving force for huge portions of people calling for this discrimination.
Click to expand...
Why not hypothesize that anti-male stigma is the driving force for those who wish to keep males apart from females?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'd say you could replace "cis males" here with "cis and trans and other GNC males" and be somewhat closer to the original assumption. I've seen no evidence to support the conclusion that cisgender males are more sexually aggressive than other males, even though the idea strikes me as somewhat intuitive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just emphasizing a point, in a probably futile hope that the actual position would be acknowledged.

It seems unlikely, but hope springs eternal.
 
theprestige said:
Really the whole thing is far more susceptible to accusations of misandry than of transphobia.
Click to expand...
Indeed so. For every single transgender or GNC male whom gender critical feminists and traditional conservatives hope to exclude from (formerly) female spaces and leagues there are at least dozens of cisgender males whom they also hope to exclude.
 
Sorry if this has been posted before. I watch this biologist for his creationism debunking videos, but then came across this sex and gender myth debunking video. I don't expect it will make much of a difference in people's minds, but I thought it was interesting.

 
Upchurch said:
Sorry if this has been posted before. I watch this biologist for his creationism debunking videos, but then came across this sex and gender myth debunking video. I don't expect it will make much of a difference in people's minds, but I thought it was interesting.

Click to expand...
He gets all the biology right, but does he understand the distinction between sex and gender in the social sciences?

"Gametes can be gendered..."

"There are also plenty of species that have three or more genders..."

No idea what definition of gender he's using here, but it probably doesn't include social construction.

ETA: I'm not entirely sure he got all the biology 100% right, upon reflection. BSTc sexual dimorphism is well established but the number of FtM patients studied appears to be n=1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6758506/
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
He gets all the biology right, but does he understand the distinction between sex and gender in the social sciences?

"Gametes can be gendered..."

I'm guessing not so much.
Click to expand...

Not to mention something about 'is M/F on birth certificates the end of the story? No! Because some other totally different species can change sex'!

ETA: I didn't know other species even had birth certificates.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
Not to mention something about 'is M/F on birth certificates the end of the story? No! Because some other totally different species can change sex'!

ETA: I didn't know other species even had birth certificates.
Click to expand...
Did you stop watching the video at that point?
 
d4m10n said:
He gets all the biology right, but does he understand the distinction between sex and gender in the social sciences?

"Gametes can be gendered..."

"There are also plenty of species that have three or more genders..."

No idea what definition of gender he's using here, but it probably doesn't include social construction.
Click to expand...

He addressed the terminology about a minute and a half into the video and is clearly approaching the issue primarily from a biological perspective.
 
Upchurch said:
He addressed the terminology about a minute and a half into the video and is clearly approaching the issue primarily from a biological perspective.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to catch the discussion about "truscum" upthread? The basic idea is that if you believe transgender identity is rooted in biology (and revealed by medical diagnostics rather than self-identification) then you are transphobic and immoral.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
He addressed the terminology about a minute and a half into the video and is clearly approaching the issue primarily from a biological perspective.
Click to expand...

I havent watched the video, yet, but I will. Since I, also, approach the issue from a primarily biological perspective, I'll probably agree with most of it.
 
Upchurch said:
Oh, you were just being disingenuous. Got it.
Click to expand...

Elaedith's point about "nothing original" is that he's not covering any ground we haven't already covered here ourselves. We've been talking about the terminology, and the social constructs, and the biological facts, this whole time.

Maybe his insights creationism are helpful to theists who haven't had a proper think-through of their beliefs yet. But he's not really telling us here anything new.

Did you happen to have in mind any specific points he raised, that struck you as particularly important or calling for consideration here?
 
Meadmaker said:
I havent watched the video, yet, but I will. Since I, also, approach the issue from a primarily biological perspective, I'll probably agree with most of it.
Click to expand...

And, I did agree with most of it. Indeed, I don't recall anything in it that I specifically disagreed with. There were a couple of things that I would have to go back and parse his words very closely to see about.

So....ok, then. What was the point?

Regardless of what the point was, I would say it was a pretty good video. At 30 minutes, it was a bit of investment, but it was pretty well done and had a lot of information that even the most informed non-biologists probably didn't know.
 
Somehow Upchurch has managed to introduce something that informs nothing, clarifies nothing, resolves nothing. And says nothing new. I guess all that remains is to see if Upchurch returns to explain WTF they're* playing at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom