• 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.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Why would you blithely assume female athletes generally take this view, given that they have access to the record books?
Click to expand...

Can't make everyone happy. I'm just going to nod and agree at who ever screams the loudest and calls me the worst insult.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't see sports as the game breaker (no pun) that others do.

We already have skill based sports demarcation. (AA, AAA, Pro or Varsity/JV or whatever).

Sports can just become skill based with gender ignored.

Hell you could probably gender neutral (yeah I'm using neutral as a verb, sue me) boxing just with weight classes and maintain a pretty fair level of both fairness and competition.

Tyson Fury is 6 foot 9 and about ~255 lbs. Most women shouldn't fight him just because there aren't "most women" that are that big.
Click to expand...

Nope, I’ve looked hard and don’t see a smilie in this post. So you must be serious. And hopelessly wrong.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:

The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.
Click to expand...

That opinion piece (not a peer-reviewed article) conflates secondary characteristics with primary sex. Pretty much every developmental pathway is complicated. But mutations in the Hox genes that result in missing limbs or alternate numbers of digits don't lead us to say that humans have a variable number of digits or limbs.

The article seems to intentionally conflate sexual identity/sexuality with primary sex. This sentence is particularly bad: the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.
Note that no other sexes are named/characterized, and a false equivalency is being made (i.e. noting that sex is binary does not mean that transgender people 'are not real' (just that they're not actually changing sex).

It's an incredibly myopic point of view.

Again, to be clear: sex is a reproductive method many millions of years old. There is much evidence that it exists due to its ability to form novel genetic combinations. In mammals sex is an obligate binary (though we've long suspected this, the nuclear transplantation experiments of the 80s solidified this, e.g.
That is, there can be only the two gamete types and those bodies that produce them.


It's clear that sex/development in other mammals (and far beyond) is homologous to what occurs in humans, so any argument you make for what happens with us needs to extend other mammals at least, or it's special pleading. Sexual behavior, identity, etc. are different than sex itself.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Not sure why the obvious analogy to the Satanic Panic isn't being made here. The same types of people who made baseless accusations of child sexual abuse by deviants [...]
Click to expand...

That's not at all the obvious analogy, from my perspective.

The SRA/Multiple Personality narrative had support from many sides but like the trans "gender identity" narrative, it was enthusiastically promoted by therapists, mental health "experts" and organizations, celebrity talk show hosts and public figures who bought right into the ludicrous SRA claims in Michelle Remembers (co-written by Dr. Lawrence Pazder, psychiatrist, and his patient Michelle Smith whom he ended up marrying) and subsequent claims from various therapists and clinicians.

The general populace really can't be blamed too much for believing that nonsense when so many people with clout and authority were saying it was true.

Also like the Satanic Panic, I predict in 5 to 10 years, we'll be seeing a lot more Keira Bells filing lawsuits against therapists and clinics who are WAY too quick to prescribe drugs (drugs which the UK court found to be "experimental", since long-term effects and outcomes are unknown and Tavistock was NOT doing any long term follow up) to young teens and sometimes children even younger than that. If lawsuits start piling up and "detransitioners" start gaining more visibility, public perception will likely begin to shift. But (again) like the Satanic Panic, there will be a lot of very damaged people and families left dealing with the consequences.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think your belief that transwomen don't face many of the same barriers as women is absurd.


In every way that matters, transwomen are much more like other women than they are like men.
Click to expand...

Not in the original way that woman was defined - adult human female . To say that sex doesn't matter or has nothing to do with why females are oppressed defies logic & evidence. I'm also not convinced that transwomen crime rates are any different than other males.....
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.
Click to expand...

Nutjob opinion pieces published by pop-science magazines do not constitute scientific sources.
 
Louden Wilde said:
That opinion piece (not a peer-reviewed article) conflates secondary characteristics with primary sex.
Click to expand...

Yes, hence my earlier remark about having slept through one's statistics class, as that is the error of conflating an independent variable (sex) with dependent variables (secondary sex characteristics).
 
One of the things that keeps coming up is the whole definition thing. We've been over it before, more than once, but we just keep coming around to it.

If we accept the modern jargon of cis/trans/male/female, we have a set of people that consists of the union of the sets of cisgender females plus transgender males. This is the set that was formerly known as "women", but times change. So what should we call them now? Boudicca90 apparently doesn't like "biological women". Maybe, "People with uteri"? (I suppose "uteri" is the plural of uterus. Uteruses doesn't sound great. Maybe "People that have a uterus", since each of them only has one uterus.) It sounds kind of awkward.

To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
Leading experts in the field include Zucker (who chaired the DSM5 working group and is the world leading expert on gender dysphoria) and Cantor, who are both at loggerheads with trans activists. Both are critical of the gender identity lobby and of politicians who are passing legislation not based on science, and without consulting experts. That's why they are hated by activists and are the constant target of smear campaigns.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I should have been clearer: I mistrust the experts and organizations who are uncritically accepting and promoting the pseudoscience of gender identity. (Reserving the right to amend that view, of course, but absent any compelling evidence I can’t bring myself to see it as anything but pseudoscience)

Thank you, though, for highlighting something I missed: For all the talk in this thread about how the Gender Critical viewpoint is wrong, how doubters are a small minority and how leading experts and academic institutions overwhelmingly support gender identity, it’s important to see that this view is *not* universally accepted and it IS disputed by credible experts and leaders in the field.
 
Meadmaker said:
One of the things that keeps coming up is the whole definition thing. We've been over it before, more than once, but we just keep coming around to it.

If we accept the modern jargon of cis/trans/male/female, we have a set of people that consists of the union of the sets of cisgender females plus transgender males. This is the set that was formerly known as "women", but times change. So what should we call them now? Boudicca90 apparently doesn't like "biological women". Maybe, "People with uteri"? (I suppose "uteri" is the plural of uterus. Uteruses doesn't sound great. Maybe "People that have a uterus", since each of them only has one uterus.) It sounds kind of awkward.

To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
Click to expand...

I'm kind of beginning to lose interest after 4 humungous threads now, but why do you bother putting "cis" in your options when you have male and female?

Cis is and always will be redundant, to give other people the warm fuzzies.
 
cullennz said:
I'm kind of beginning to lose interest after 4 humungous threads now, but why do you bother putting "cis" in your options when you have male and female?

Cis is and always will be redundant, to give other people the warm fuzzies.
Click to expand...

It isn't redundant, but yes it is used to give people warm fuzzies. I think specifically it is used to say that there are two different types of women, and two different types of men, and to put the two types on equal footing.


As for what I'm doing with my most recent post is that I'm really pointing out that classifying people by their means of reproduction is actually pretty useful. Bringing it up again, for the umpteenth time, is a reaction to Boudicca90's insistence that she is a biological woman, and just wondering if we can get an acknowledgement that there is a very significant difference between those who bear children, and people with bodies very similar to them, and those who sire children, and people with bodies very similar to them. There is a thing called "sex" in the biology books, and everyone pretty much agrees that transwomen are of the male sex, except Boudicca90 and some other trans-activists.

Well, fine, if one insists that sex is "really" a spectrum, and that people born with a uterus can actually be male, there is still a pretty significant thing about all those people who we used to call "women", but in our new, enlightened, society, are called something else. Nevertheless, the people still exist, and they share anatomical features, and I just wonder if the trans-activists think there's some benefit of lumping all of those people into a category that has a name.

Putting it differently, it is acknowledging that some of these debates are all about terms, so if you want "woman" to mean something different, that's all well and good. It would be nice if you could do the dictionary thing and use some other words to provide a new definition of "woman", but we've been down that road, too. However, there is, underneath those words, an actual reality that actually matters. Having a uterus is kind of worth mentioning, so much so that most languages use a shortened term to capture the idea. Will transactivists actually acknowledge that significance?

(Note: If anyone says that somehow the existence of hysterectomies somehow negates the above, it means either,
1) You don't understand what I mean, in which case you are stupid. or
2) You do understand what I mean, but you are going to say it anyway, in which case you are pretending to be stupid.)
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It isn't redundant, but yes it is used to give people warm fuzzies. I think specifically it is used to say that there are two different types of women, and two different types of men, and to put the two types on equal footing.


As for what I'm doing with my most recent post is that I'm really pointing out that classifying people by their means of reproduction is actually pretty useful. Bringing it up again, for the umpteenth time, is a reaction to Boudicca90's insistence that she is a biological woman, and just wondering if we can get an acknowledgement that there is a very significant difference between those who bear children, and people with bodies very similar to them, and those who sire children, and people with bodies very similar to them. There is a thing called "sex" in the biology books, and everyone pretty much agrees that transwomen are of the male sex, except Boudicca90 and some other trans-activists.

Well, fine, if one insists that sex is "really" a spectrum, and that people born with a uterus can actually be male, there is still a pretty significant thing about all those people who we used to call "women", but in our new, enlightened, society, are called something else. Nevertheless, the people still exist, and they share anatomical features, and I just wonder if the trans-activists think there's some benefit of lumping all of those people into a category that has a name.

Putting it differently, it is acknowledging that some of these debates are all about terms, so if you want "woman" to mean something different, that's all well and good. It would be nice if you could do the dictionary thing and use some other words to provide a new definition of "woman", but we've been down that road, too. However, there is, underneath those words, an actual reality that actually matters. Having a uterus is kind of worth mentioning, so much so that most languages use a shortened term to capture the idea. Will transactivists actually acknowledge that significance?

(Note: If anyone says that somehow the existence of hysterectomies somehow negates the above, it means either,
1) You don't understand what I mean, in which case you are stupid. or
2) You do understand what I mean, but you are going to say it anyway, in which case you are pretending to be stupid.)
Click to expand...

This is the bit that gets all flip flopped and confused when talking about this I think.

I thought (Maybe wrongly, as this "Identity" **** seems to morph every time I look at it again), that we had established the following.

Man/Male are different. One sex. The other nicked by Trans activists

Ditto Woman/Female

Gender
Man/Women/Trans other weird version who don't want either man or woman/What ever some people are going to claim is a spectrum or whatever I can't be bothered with.

Sex
Male/Female
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: That is a misunderstanding of what the term spectrum implies in mathematical contexts.
Click to expand...

Well, the term is used differently in different contexts, but what the gender identity ideologues appear to be meaning is as a function from a continuous interval between "male" and "female." Which, even if we accept this redefinition of sex in terms of various other characteristics, would be strictly speaking false since the set of possible genetic combinations in humans is finite. And even if we take a continuum limit, the actual function between "male" and "female" will depend on how you choose to combine those various other characteristics together into a single continuum between "male" and "female", so it's ill-defined anyway.

ETA: Then of course, "ill-defined" probably sums up their whole position in general.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
Click to expand...

I'd like to cast a vote for either The Uterati or the Ovarati.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom