Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

Tell me you didn't click the link without telling me you didn't click the link.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2016/09/FT_16.09.29_transgender_1.png

Seriously? - that's 2016 data.

2025 here ( although not broken down by sex)
"Require trans people to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth"; In favour 49%: Oppose 26%

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...estrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/

EDIT: Ninjas, but also 30 seconds work with a search engine

 

[Aber]

If you want to claim they've changed, feel free to do so. (A skeptical person might ask for data.)

My contention is that these policy changes were mostly brought about by women changing their minds and their votes so as to make society more trans-inclusive, with male allies lagging somewhat behind at every step.

More recent data is easily available which shows a very different picture; a sceptical person might ask why you posted near 10 year old data.

An alternative explanation is that this issue is a key divider between parties; and what you have seen is driven by the higher visibility of women in the Democratic Party.

 

[Myriad]

Seriously? - that's 2016 data.

2025 here ( although not broken down by sex)
"Require trans people to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth"; In favour 49%: Oppose 26%

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...estrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/

Oh come now! You know the 2025 data cannot possibly be valid, because it failed to exclude bigots and transphobes (such as, people who answered that they're in favor) from the sample group!

 

[John Freestone]

On some issues, sure. I'd say Glenn v. Brumby was rightly decided and that it was pointless and stupid to kick Hunter Maquez out of the USAF, to cite a couple very specific examples directly or indirectly involving people I've known.

I'm glad I asked. That's not what I meant by 'pro-trans'. I should have said 'transgender ideology'. I'd call that being reasonably supportive of people's rights even if those people are victims of transgender ideology. Without studying particular legal cases, I'd say I'm with you on that, but I'm against transgender ideology. I'd also say that identifying out of one's sex ought to limit one's rights in certain ways (e.g. bathrooms, army barracking, sports).

Overall, I'd say they ask far too much. ACLU activists have openly stated that they hope to replace sex with gender identity in law and policy.

Ok. That helps too. I think any transgender ideology and acts associated with it (the 'movement') are bad for individuals and society, completely unnecessary, anti-science, and should be entirely discouraged. 'Trans' is similar to a religion, and I'm in favour of freedom of belief up to a point, and that point is where believers demand too much special treatment, additional rights that encroach on the rights of others.

A person should not be able to stop their fire engine, get a mat out, find East [ETA: I mean Mecca, how parochial of me!], and pray for ten minutes on the way to a fire. IMO, people who think they aren't the sex they are disqualify themselves from certain activities, particularly any professional role involving young people, vulnerable adults, and children. I'd say that's true for those who can't stop going on about Jesus or Muhammad in their biology tutorials, but it's fine if they keep their religion private; I'm less inclined to profer the same leeway to 'trans' people or 'transsexuals', partly because their religion (almost always) inherently involves expression (a big part of being trans is to look and behave trans), and partly because the beliefs potentially lead to more damage more easily.

 

[John Freestone]

Re 2016: lots of people were in favour of Brexit until Brexit happened. Lots of people were in favour of Trump until Trump happened. Sometimes societies make mistakes (especially when subject to relentless mendacious propaganda, and after decades of erosion of educational standards).

 

[smartcooky]

Re 2016: lots of people were in favour of Brexit until Brexit happened. Lots of people were in favour of Trump until Trump happened. Sometimes societies make mistakes (especially when subject to relentless mendacious propaganda, and after decades of erosion of educational standards).

There is also the very important issue of the ill-informed public. In 2016, there was nowhere near the publicity there is now, and many, many people thought that a "transwoman" was a woman who is transgender, i.e., dressed up as a man. People did not understand that it was the other way around... that all "transwomen" are in fact males. As the public has become better and better informed so they have become more and more against transgender identifying males imposing themselves into women's spaces.

 

[p0lka]

Not trying to argue it is not absurd, I'm pointing out that even if the word "gender" only ever conveyed the meanings known to Noah Webster in 1828 and was never once appropriated by the transexual movement and their intersectional feminist allies, those activists would still be able to convey their core ideology by reconceptualizing "sex" and various terms derived therefrom. The problem faced by those who want to preserve single-sex spaces and services is the reconceptualization of sex from a condition of the body to a condition of the mind, it doesn't matter all that much which specific words were used to accomplish this feat.

ok, got what you're saying. That reconceptualization of sex to mind is going to hit a brick wall the moment it touches science though.

I get that @John Freestone is saying we need to avoid using "gender" in any sense of the term because it has been weaponized for certain ideological aims, but I don't think that will actually help given that the core ideas are already out there being absorbed and passed around. Those ideas need to be squarely refuted, regardless of the language we find them wrapped in.

Yeah, the 'gender being different from sex' concept has already been out in the wild for decades at least and it would be silly to pretend otherwise, as you can't model anything if you're ignoring an input.

 

[Ziggurat]

ok, got what you're saying. That reconceptualization of sex to mind is going to hit a brick wall the moment it touches science though.

In politics, that doesn't tend to matter.

 

[d4m10n]

That reconceptualization of sex to mind is going to hit a brick wall the moment it touches science though.

At least one reputable skeptic has argued that "The brain is a sexual organ, and part of sexual dimorphism."

2025 here ( although not broken down by sex)

If it's not broken down by sex, then it doesn't tell us anything about the gender gap in support for trans rights.

Care to guess whether that 49% goes up or down when we only look at female respondents?

a sceptical person might ask why you posted near 10 year old data.

If you can find more recent crosstabs broken out by sex, I'm happy to take those data on board.

 

[d4m10n]

You seem to be the only person hung up on the idea that popularity indicates correctness on this issue

It seems rather bizarre to treat this as if it were a factual or moral question.

There is no correctness or incorrectness to be had here, only collections of people deciding how best to allocate shared resources given disparate values amongst service users and patrons. If owners want to sort their gyms and spas by sex, that is just fine with me. If they would rather sort by gender identity, I'll probably just take my business elsewhere. It's a free country, or at least it should be.

I oppose the intersectional feminists who hope to judicially impose a gender-based approach on everyone, but I also oppose the second wave feminists who expect everyone to conform to their sex-based approach. Both of these groups are too authoritarian for my taste, since they refuse to allow alternative approaches even when they already have at least some of their own spaces operating in the way they would prefer.

 

[p0lka]

I've answered it, but my question wasn't great, so forget it. I have another one for you: Are you male or female?

My preferred pronouns, by the way, are he/him/his, because I'm male and those are the traditional pronouns for males. On the other hand, if you wish to say they/them/their when referring to me, I don't mind.

Your answer to my original question didn't make a lot of sense really, as there's an inbuilt assumption that gender does equal sex whilst answering the question that gender being different from sex would solve problems, with a no.

My statement was, "people, kids, think they are a particular gender (by which they literally mean sex) on the basis of what they like and don't like."

people, kids equate gender with sex is your statement, got it.

No, separating sex from gender wouldn't solve that problem. It created the problem. I probably didn't express that clearly enough. The people I'm talking about use the word 'gender' when they start believing they are 'trans', but what they are imagining (at least many of them) is that they can change their sex. They don't know (a) that sex is binary and immutable, thanks to the TRAs lying endlessly to them, and (b) they're using 'gender' almost the way it was used when it replaced 'sex', just as what you call being male or female.

So gender being equated to sex is a problem, got it.

What do you mean by 'gender being separate from sex'? I believe you mean they will be fine to accept their sex (assigned at birth, as they'll still call it) and put on whatever gender they want (when they want).

Most people don't even notice the gender stuff as they naturally fall into the societal roles. Indoctrination is a powerful thing.

And you're apparently so innocent, you think that'll solve the problem. Just like you're so naive you imagine putting "FEMALE" on toilet doors will keep the males out.

namecalling doesn't make one correct.

And you appeared to agree with the main point of my statement - they see sexual stereotypes and on that basis decide what sex they are (they - at least many of them - just call it gender instead). But if we - if teachers in school especially - just talked about the sexes, gender ideology would not get such a foothold. 'Gender' immediately invites 'gender identity'. But then apparently you're fine with that as well, so god knows where you are from moment to moment. You don't want kids to think they're the opposite sex based on stereotypes, but you're happy for them to try different 'genders' as and when they feel like it, because they have an internal sense of their gender. I give up.

Again referencing a problem that's caused by mixing up gender and sex.

Yet your answer to my question 'wouldn't separating gender from sex solve the problem' was a no?

I've answered it, but my question wasn't great, so forget it. I have another one for you: Are you male or female?

My preferred pronouns, by the way, are he/him/his, because I'm male and those are the traditional pronouns for males. On the other hand, if you wish to say they/them/their when referring to me, I don't mind.

I'll answer your question if you really answer my original question.

Thanks for the preferred pronouns, nice to meet you

edit: I don't have any preferred pronouns, refer to me however you want.

 

[p0lka]

At least one reputable skeptic has argued that "The brain is a sexual organ, and part of sexual dimorphism."

Thanks for that. The author of the link steven novella did a 'basically this is my position'

steven novella ---Here is my actual position, as articulated (quite clearly, if the overwhelming feedback I got was any indication) in the talk. Biological sex in humans is multifactorial and complicated, pretty much like all of biology. While there are two pathways of sexual development (we are a sexually dimorphic species), humanity is not “strictly” binary because not everyone fits cleanly or unambiguously into one of two sexes. Pretty much every aspect of biological sex has variations, or “differences in sexual development”, or ambiguous features in some individuals. These are the facts, and you cannot meaningfully disagree about this. So how do skeptics disagree? Largely due to semantics (or I guess making the other side into a one-dimensional strawman).

then went on to argue about archaeopteryx and labelling category clade genus errors, then more waffle.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks for that. The author of the link steven novella did a 'basically this is my position'



then went on to argue about archaeopteryx and labelling category clade genus errors, then more waffle.

Novella is not a biologist. He is a clinical neurologist and an assistant professor at Yale, so his pronouncements and opinions on aspects of biology are no more scholarly than the average layman.

Once a respected figure, skeptic and critical thinker, he has fallen down the rabbit hole onto the transgender gravy train, and has become a member of the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology.

 

[p0lka]

Novella is not a biologist. He is a clinical neurologist and an assistant professor at Yale, so his pronouncements and opinions on aspects of biology are no more scholarly than the average layman.

Once a respected figure, skeptic and critical thinker, he has fallen down the rabbit hole onto the transgender gravy train, and has become a member of the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology.

Do you mean that they have focused so much on the minor trivial differences between sex that they are redefining things according to wishful thinking? If so yeah.

 

[p0lka]

I love the way you drop your bombs. In each case preemptive, but they don't actually work because facts matter.

 

[smartcooky]

I love the way you drop your bombs. In each case preemptive, but they don't actually work because facts matter.

The highlighted parts of @Emily's Cat's post that I was responding to...

Post in thread 'Transwomen are not Women - Part 15'

Jan 23, 2026

I'm not hearing similar indignation about transmen taking "men's words"? While we're at it, imma throw a fit because 'human' and 'woman' and 'mankind' stole our special word. Hey, you stole the 'male' to use in 'female'.Where's my clutching pearls?

EC, you're not 'giving up' anything, or having anything taken away from you. This is ridiculous.

Over the past decade, there's been a concerted push from activists for transgender privileges to systematically dismantle language that is specific to the female sex. Things like:

• replacing mother with birthing parent or gestational...

• Emily's Cat

• 

yeah, those are FACTS chum!

... as are the bullet points above that...

Over the past decade, there's been a concerted push from activists for transgender privileges to systematically dismantle language that is specific to the female sex. Things like:

• replacing mother with birthing parent or gestational parent
• replacing breastfeeding with chestfeeding
• replacing the word woman with person with a cervix, womb-haver, people with uteruses, menstruators, bleeders, breeders, and other dehumanizing language
• expanding the word woman to include males by default

Oh, you don't think so? Read on MacDuff...

Brighton NHS Trust introduces new trans-friendly terms

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust said it won't exclude "the language of motherhood".

www.bbc.com

Top Australian university urges staff to say 'chestfeeding'

Australia's leading uni has asked staff to adopt 'gender-inclusive' parenting language.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Hospital to use terms like 'birthing parents' and 'human milk'

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust unveiled a blizzard of 'gender inclusive' phrases in a drive to stamp out 'mainstream transphobia'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There has even been a BBC Newsreader (Martine Croxall) who was censured, by the BBC for using the correct term for women... "women" instead of what her auto-prompter script said... "pregnant people"

BBC Rebukes Presenter Martine Croxall After Viewers Complained About Her Facial Expression When She Corrected “Pregnant People” To “Women”

The BBC has censured news presenter Martine Croxall after she went viral for changing her autocue from “pregnant people” to “women.”

deadline.com

This is part of the sinister methodology by which gender ideologues have infiltrated and insinuated their ideology into society - by subverting speech to their own ends and punishing those in positions of influence who do not comply with the Doctrine of the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology. This incident demonstrates as clearly as is possible, the extent to which the ideologically captured BBC has fallen down the transgenderism rabbit hole - censuring one of their top newsreaders for speaking biological truth!

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems rather bizarre to treat this as if it were a factual or moral question.

Of course it's a moral question. Different answers produce different benefits and harms. Choosing an answer that does more harm with less benefit is morally wrong.

If owners want to sort their gyms and spas by sex, that is just fine with me. If they would rather sort by gender identity, I'll probably just take my business elsewhere. It's a free country, or at least it should be.

Whether or not particular choices should be compelled by law is different from whether or not those choices have a moral dimension, or even whether or not there's a right choice and a wrong choice. And there's a sort of privilege to being able to be indifferent about whether spaces are segregated by sex or by self-ID gender.

 

[smartcooky]

There is no correctness or incorrectness to be had here, only collections of people deciding how best to allocate shared resources given disparate values amongst service users and patrons. If owners want to sort their gyms and spas by sex, that is just fine with me. If they would rather sort by gender identity, I'll probably just take my business elsewhere. It's a free country, or at least it should be.

I agree, so long as they make it clear up front to their clients and members - something like...

"This is a transgender inclusive facility - this means areas are segregated in the basis of gender identity. Clients should be aware they are likely to encounter members of the opposite biological sex in their gender segregated areas"

Then people can vote with their feet, and most women will!

What I object to is laws making it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on the basis of biological sex.

 

[John Freestone]

It seems rather bizarre to treat this as if it were a factual or
moral question.

There is no correctness or incorrectness to be had here, only collections of people deciding how best to allocate shared resources given disparate values amongst service users and patrons. If owners want to sort their gyms and spas by sex, that is just fine with me. If they would rather sort by gender identity, I'll probably just take my business elsewhere. It's a free country,
or at least it should be.

Oops.

And of course, no, it shouldn't. No country should be "a free country." That would be silly, now wouldn't it?

 

[John Freestone]

Novella is not a biologist. He is a clinical neurologist and an assistant professor at Yale, so his pronouncements and opinions on aspects of biology are no more scholarly than the average layman.

Once a respected figure, skeptic and critical thinker, he has fallen down the rabbit hole onto the transgender gravy train, and has become a member of the Holy Cult of Transgender Ideology.

I actually had a row with Novella. He's one of those people who thinks because he's an expert in something he's obviously going to be an expert in everything else, and he isn't afraid to trample all over scientific consensus that's stacked against his biased garbage. Another is Richard Carrier, with whom I also had a row.
/derail

Back on topic... and so is Sabine Hossenfelder on transgender sports participation. She basically says the sexes fit slightly shifted normal distribution on speed and strength, therefore, who cares, let the best person win. She doesn't seem to care if literally all the prizes went to men, even in the women's league. Oh, and then there's the superb primatologist, Robert Sapolsky, who says that who we are is better defined by whatever we think in our brains, because our brains are the "most important part of us," so transwomen are indeed women. (And presumably anyone who thinks he's a baboon is indeed a baboon, and if they believe in god, god is true.)

Still, I agree with him that there's no free will, so he can't help it.