Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[John Freestone]

back under the bridge with you

Can't get under the bridge; too many corvids.

 

[John Freestone]

If a male tells me they are he is female then I would tell them him that they are he is not as we don't have that technology and they're he's talking bollocks. Start labeling all the private spaces [and using pronouns] according to biology and not gender man woman wishywashyness and things would be much clearer.

Even clearer if we only use "they" when we don't know a person's sex. And there's nothing wrong with "man" and "woman" if we just reaffirm that they relate to adult males and females, respectively. Judge wisely whether you correct someone: they can get a bit sniffy about it.

 

[John Freestone]

Logically, in the States they are
not lobbying for introducing inclusion of any group into any other. The advocates are lobbying for discrimination against them to formally end, and allow them access to where they should have been (and were) allowed in the first place.

Logically, combined with other things you've said here, I can only conclude that you believe that people with "a wire crossed upstairs" actually belong to the group their crossed wire causes them to believe they are.

They were never formally "allowed," so there was no discrimination, which therefore does not need to, indeed cannot, "formally end."

 

[John Freestone]

Yeah, I misspoke.

Meant to say that most of the ridicule here in this thread is performed to silence those who promote rather than question gender ideology, but in fairness I've seen the tactic used both ways.

You should correct statistical results for confounding factors, in this case the ridiculousness of the positions.

Eta: and who said any of the ridicule was to silence the other? The longer ridiculous opinions are ridiculed, the more likely are people to recognise the ridiculousness of them.

 

[John Freestone]

I think they're arguing that gender is a spectrum not sex? If not they're demonstrably wrong.
If they are trying to dismantle and/or redefine sex just laugh, as it hits a wall the moment it comes into contact with anyone remotely qualified in the topic.

I used to think that too, but sorry, nope. Top scientific journals have been writing about how sex is not binary for years. It's bull, of course, but when the cult took over academia (which was early) we had to start doing more than laughing.

 

[John Freestone]

No. It's easy to define. The problem is that they don't like the definition, because it conflicts with their goals.

Change the label to female, and female will conflict with their goals, and they will propose alternative definitions for that too.

This has never, ever actually been about definitions. It has always been about goals. Get that through your head.

That's right. Tell them gender might be a socially constructed spectrum but sex is binary, and they tell you no, sex is a spectrum. Tell them that even if they insist they're a woman, they must agree they're male, they claim they're actually a biologically female woman. They usually do that by defining biological sex as an amalgam of (cherrypicked) secondary sex characteristics and brain states.

And I'm being sexist here - I have argued the opposite plenty with TIFs. Testosterone makes you "male" or at least "more male". Ditto growing a beard, having your tits cut off or your arm attached to your groin.

 

[p0lka]

I used to think that too, but sorry, nope. Top scientific journals have been writing about how sex is not binary for years. It's bull, of course, but when the cult took over academia (which was early) we had to start doing more than laughing.

Interesting, have you got a link to the top scientific journals that say sex is not binary? Are they using binary in the sense of the output like there's male there's female there's intersex?

edit: no cult has invaded science, the whole premise is that it's data driven.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting, have you got a link to the top scientific journals that say sex is not binary? Are they using binary in the sense of the output like there's male there's female there's intersex?

edit: no cult has invaded science, the whole premise is that it's data driven.

A cult has very much invaded what you might call the scientific establishment. You can argue that this establishment is not itself science, and I would agree with you, but in that case you basically just have a semantic quibble about his phrasing.

The scientific establishment is supposed to be data driven, but because it is made of humans, sometimes it is not.

 

[p0lka]

The UK Supreme Court did exactly that in April last year...

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf

The Court concludes that the provisions of the EA 2010 discussed above are provisions to​

which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and​

“woman” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the​

EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate. Therefore, a person with a GRC in the​

female gender does not come within the definition of a “woman” under the EA 2010 and the​

statutory guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers is incorrect.​

Thanks for the reply but the highlighted does exactly the opposite regarding separating sex from gender, as it states 'man' and 'woman' refer to biological sex. In real life man and woman are used as gender terms hence the spectrum variability and being a man or a woman depending on what day it is.

The problem so far is that gender ideology-captured organizations have been deliberately dragging their feet, claiming they are waiting for the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) to issue guidance. The EHRC has actually issued TWO pieces of guidance which are currently before the UK's Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson

1. regarding single-sex spaces for public bodies and businesses
2. regarding schools on gender-questioning children

Unfortunately, Bridget Phillipson is one of THE most ideologically captured ministers in the UK Labour party. This is a woman who once, when asked, could not say or define what a woman is. She once stated that 'a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should use female toilets'

To be fair, woman and man is vaguely defined nowadays due to the gender issue, and she has to follow the law.

Phillipson is blocking the publication of the guidance that sets out the legal requirement to protect women-only spaces because, firstly, she is ideologically opposed to the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidance, and secondly, she is terrified of the political backlash from activists and being pilloried by the radical left back-benchers in her own party if she allows the guidance to go forwards.

Yeah what a mess, and it's all caused by the same thing. Call them female-only spaces and male-only spaces then see what happens.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the reply but the highlighted does exactly the opposite regarding separating sex from gender, as it states 'man' and 'woman' refer to biological sex. In real life man and woman are used as gender terms hence the spectrum variability and being a man or a woman depending on what day it is.

Some people use those words as gendered terms, some people will use them as sexed terms. The law uses them however they are defined. And in the UK, they are defined as sex terms, not gender terms.

Stop with this delusion that the fight is due to ambiguity. It is not, and never has been. It's a pathetic copout and frankly an insult to BOTH sides to argue that people just don't understand what they want.

Yeah what a mess, and it's all caused by the same thing. Call them female-only spaces and male-only spaces then see what happens.

The same exact thing that's happening now, because this was never driven by word choice. It was always driven by desired outcome.

 

[p0lka]

That's right. Tell them gender might be a socially constructed spectrum but sex is binary, and they tell you no, sex is a spectrum.

Then point them at biology and ask how so?

Tell them that even if they insist they're a woman, they must agree they're male, they claim they're actually a biologically female woman. They usually do that by defining biological sex as an amalgam of (cherrypicked) secondary sex characteristics and brain states.

Then point them at biology and ask how so?

And I'm being sexist here - I have argued the opposite plenty with TIFs. Testosterone makes you "male" or at least "more male". Ditto growing a beard, having your tits cut off or your arm attached to your groin.

It might make you more represent the gender you're wearing, but none of that changes your sex.

Edit: also, if they say they are a biological female woman then that would presume such a thing as a biological male woman? in which case that demonstrates that woman is not connected to sex as it's an independent variable. Separate the terms sex and gender and it would sort it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then point them at biology and ask how so?

You think that question matters to them? No, it doesn't. They don't care about that question, and they don't have to answer to you.

You don't have power. They only answer to power. Get your head out of your ass and wake up. You fundamentally misunderstand the entire situation.

 

[smartcooky]

Then point them at biology and ask how so?

Then point them at biology and ask how so?

It might make you more represent the gender you're wearing, but none of that changes your sex.

Edit: also, if they say they are a biological female woman then that would presume such a thing as a biological male woman? in which case that demonstrates that woman is not connected to sex as it's an independent variable. Separate the terms sex and gender and it would sort it.

You are impossibly naive. You do not understand the extent to which the people you are talking about are unhinged and totally disconnected from reality. These are people who truly believe that a male can become a female because he thinks it.

TRAs don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about facts, science or evidence.
TRA's have infiltrated the rank and file of academia, mainstream media and the political left.
TRAs change the meanings of words to mean whatever suits them, and then claim that was what they always meant.
TRAs are ultra-focused on getting exactly what they want - no exceptions or compromises, and at whatever the cost.
TRAs hate dissenters, they will doxx, swat, threaten to kill and do actual violence on them.
TRAs behave in a cult-like fashion - detransitioners are publicly mocked and vilified.

These are not people that can be reasoned with. Changing signs in toilets, or pointing towards facts and science has ZERO effect on them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are impossibly naive.

This error has been so consistent in the face of so many explanations that I no longer believe it's naivety. It's willful ignorance. I don't understand exactly why, but there's something about the reality of this situation which p0lka cannot accept, possibly because it would shatter some core belief he has. He is protecting some belief about the way the world works which accepting this reality would break. I can see no other explanation for the tenacity of his error, I'm just not sure exactly what that belief he's protecting is. Perhaps he doesn't even fully realize himself.

 

[Rolfe]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010459399689773172

 

[smartcooky]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010459399689773172

When they show you exactly who and what they are, believe them!!

 

[Aber]

I do so love police staying out of our lives and letting us run ourselves.

"God is on the side of the big battalions"

Average male 200lb; average female 170lb

Your position is not neutral.

 

[John Freestone]

Interesting, have you got a link to the top scientific journals that say sex is not binary? Are they using binary in the sense of the output like there's male there's female there's intersex?

edit: no cult has invaded science, the whole premise is that it's data driven.

Here's one of them I've had thrust at me several times - Scientific American, no less. There were others, but I'm on my phone and it's tricky to lay my hands on them. I gather you've not been down this particular rabbit hole very deeply. Just about all the TRAs I've had the pleasure of meeting told me this. Binary sex is old science; we've moved on.

As explained, I used "science" to mean the academic community. Many of the papers, like the above, are mere opinion pieces rather than experimental results, but their authors are meant to have expertise, as are the peer reviewers, and it is those types who have been increasingly educated in woke universities where political correctness subjugated scientific rigor and personal ethics. For more on this, check out the story of biologist, Colin Wright, hounded off his professional jobs search forum for arguing that sex is binary.

A nice response to the SA paper is this.

 

[John Freestone]

This error has been so consistent in the face of so many explanations that I no longer believe it's naivety. It's willful ignorance. I don't understand exactly why, but there's something about the reality of this situation which p0lka cannot accept, possibly because it would shatter some core belief he has. He is protecting some belief about the way the world works which accepting this reality would break. I can see no other explanation for the tenacity of his error, I'm just not sure exactly what that belief he's protecting is. Perhaps he doesn't even fully realize himself.

I'm new in this thread, of course, so take with a pinch of salt, but this reminds me how many people find the cult's assertions so absolutely insane they can't grok it, and instead think we've somehow misunderstood some nuance. It took me a while to accept some people believe they're literally born in the wrong body.

 

[John Freestone]

Then think about it briefly. Self-policing puts the whole gig solidly in the 'and now it's my problem' bin, not Mr Policeman's. Guy creeping out women? I'm in, and will happily show him the door. Bigot trying to humiliate and harass a docile transwoman? Also in, and call out the bigot just as loudly.I do so love police staying out of our lives and letting us run ourselves.

This is a very stupid and arrogant opinion typical of the privileged and/or lucky (actually, the same thing). Would you apply this rule generally? What if you were burgled? Blackmailed? Threatened by an armed gang? Your relative murdered or raped? Accidentally killed in a traffic incident? Bullied at work until it's necessary for mental health to quit? If you're not entirely in favour of self-policing, what criteria separate the cases where you want law and order from those where you'd rather beat up or otherwise sort out whom ever you think deserves it?

And isn't the latter just barbarism? What do you do when someone bigger and harder and more vicious than you thinks you're the one who raped their kid, just take whatever they dish out so as not to bother "Mr Policeman"?*

*(Other sexes of police officer are available.)