Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Some good news for Shahrah Ali who was discriminated against by the Green Party for his views.


View: https://x.com/ShahrarAli/status/1834644274865958936

 

[monkers]

What's your point in listing these articles by journalists with an agender.

Thank goodness the expert on everything including spelling and grammar is here to correct everything that everybody says.

 

[monkers]

Let's have a closer look at the claims you repeat from the article.

1. "Average hormone levels also vary wildly from person to person according to genetics, developmental and environmental factors, and a host of other variables. So a “normal” male or female testosterone level actually describes a broad range".

Not true. It's a range only within M and F levels. Male and female levels of testosterone hardly ever overlap, even in women with conditions like PCOS.

View attachment 6696

2. According to experts, it’s more a rule of thumb than a hard-and-fast metric.

This links to a Guardian article on a doctor who treats prostate cancer in men and Dr Cordelia Fine who says cultural factors affects behaviour more than we acknowledge. The article doesn't support the idea that testosterone levels are 'a rule of thumb'.


3. 'It’s far easier than many people seem to think to find AFAB people with naturally “male” T profiles or AMAB people with naturally “female” profiles'.

Not true. This claim links to an article on Caster Semenya - who has high testosterone levels because they are a male. A male with a dsd, not a female with high testosterone. Semenya's T levels are normal for a male.

4. 'People’s testosterone levels also swing around wildly throughout the day and move up and down in response to developments in our lives: Men seem to experience notable dips in T while caring for a new child, for example'.

The support link is to research that shows male testosterone levels dip in fathers of new born. It does not dip into female T levels and is temporary.
What's your point in listing these articles by journalists with an agender? It's the hope that readers will take them at face value, believe their unevidenced claims, and somehow swallow the line that men with low testosterone are really just the same as women and should therefore be allowed in women's spaces.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Thank goodness the expert on everything including spelling and grammar is here to correct everything that everybody says.

Yes, I missed an autocorrect. Doesn't really undermine 200 million years of mammalian anisogamy though.

View attachment 6698

Pointing out that he (and by extension you) provide no evidence for your claims isn't science denial.

From the same author as your unevidenced article. He isn't a science graduate, never mind a biologist, and he churns out dozens of these types of article, plus endless 'I have x,y,z, ... here's how I have sex' click bait.

Vice has sacked most of their journalists. Not surprising as AI can write the same quality stuff for free.

 

[monkers]

Some good news for Shahrah Ali who was discriminated against by the Green Party for his views.


View: https://x.com/ShahrarAli/status/1834644274865958936

N here.

Dr Ali called the result a "landmark case".

He called the result the latest in a "series of judgements" supporting gender critical beliefs, since a High Court judge ruled Maya Forstater's belief people cannot change their biological sex was protected under the Equality Act.

Either Dr Ali did not understand the result of his case (somewhat unlikely), or he is deliberately making a false claim (somewhat more likely).

 

[monkers]

Yes, I missed an autocorrect. Doesn't really undermine 200 million years of mammalian anisogamy though.

N here

I guess everyone will have to accept that you are not someone who is sometimes fallible. You have to make the mistake before a bot can fail to detect it. Of course homophone mishaps are harder to spot even when proof reading.

The sarcasm of my post was necessary.

Scientists tend to be in agreement that the science pertaining to human hormone levels is not settled, and due to the natural variation of humans probably never will be.

Your dismissal of the linked article was anticipated. Your selective view of it is typical of your posts.

Anyway, I really can't afford to waste my time with further replies to you.

Just to note here that the sum of the resistance to settled science prevalent on the internet and this thread in particular is astonishing. The below shows collective resistance. However your own resistance lends examples to each class member and then some.

 

[AndyRM]

I used to drive my sibling absolutely nuts by saying gravity was just a theory. And I particularly like "You're just a shill for big trig", which is the only maths I was ever any good at.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Scientists tend to be in agreement that the science pertaining to human hormone levels is not settled, and due to the natural variation of humans probably never will be.

Unevidenced claim again. With regard to testosterone the parameters of what is normal for male and females are well established, having been the subject of decades of research and millions of tests. Anything outside 'normal' for males or females is rightly considered a sign of something going awry.

Your dismissal of the linked article was anticipated. Your selective view of it is typical of your posts.

My dismissal of the article is because it is a pseudo scientific article, a list of claims that aren't backed up by the articles it links to. Yet you present it as evidence.

The settled science is that there are two sexes, with some variation within each sex (ie dsds).
You are the flat earther here, railing against millions of years of evolution and established science that sex is immutable and men can never be women.

To what end? So you can get men into women's spaces, sports, facilities.

 

[monkers]

Unevidenced claim again. With regard to testosterone the parameters of what is normal for male and females are well established, having been the subject of decades of research and millions of tests. Anything outside 'normal' for males or females is rightly considered a sign of something going awry.



My dismissal of the article is because it is a pseudo scientific article, a list of claims that aren't backed up by the articles it links to. Yet you present it as evidence.

The settled science is that there are two sexes, with some variation within each sex (ie dsds).
You are the flat earther here, railing against millions of years of evolution and established science that sex is immutable and men can never be women.

To what end? So you can get men into women's spaces, sports, facilities.

N here

A general observation rather than a reply to your points.

Neither you or I or monkers are scientists, though monkers with her engineering background is no slouch on physics or maths.

Monkers never does pretend to have expertise on biology, precision in grammar etc. What she has done in this thread is explain, very patiently in the beginning, that very complex matters are not satisfied by simplistic argument.

Stock is not a scientist either, yet I witnessed you defending her as if she is. Stock willfully misuses science in argument. She also willfully misuses her own academic area - philosophy. Mark Hay is not a scientist. He is a journalist. As such he writes in an often entertaining style. However I can not recall seeing him willfully misquoting scientists, often providing links to articles written by qualified authors.

You need a consistent approach or you are in danger of outdoing yourself.

 

[monkers]

Unevidenced claim again. With regard to testosterone the parameters of what is normal for male and females are well established, having been the subject of decades of research and millions of tests. Anything outside 'normal' for males or females is rightly considered a sign of something going awry.

My dismissal of the article is because it is a pseudo scientific article, a list of claims that aren't backed up by the articles it links to. Yet you present it as evidence.

The settled science is that there are two sexes, with some variation within each sex (ie dsds).
You are the flat earther here, railing against millions of years of evolution and established science that sex is immutable and men can never be women.

To what end? So you can get men into women's spaces, sports, facilities.

N again

I am not writing in defence of myself posting here. I don't know what my T levels might have been without intervention.

I agree that the human mammal has two reproductive sexes. I agree that if this was not the case that there could not be mothers and fathers, and that our species could not have survived. The overwhelming evidence without the need to quote it is that our species does not require each of us to be engaged in reproduction. Our species will survive without that requirement. In fact the converse is true, over-population with the accompanying shortage of resources, the competition for them (war) and the capitalist model, along with climate change will ensure our eventual extinction.

If concern for human survival as a species is concerned, then the greater issue is the falling sperm count among human males.

Gender critical views are said to be feminist in nature. I disagree with this view. You will know already that a number of surveys seem to indicate that men are perhaps more gender critical than women. I have read various theories around that, none very flattering to men I might add.

There is evidence that gender criticism has grown with the development of so-called 'think tanks' funded chiefly by American money with their various adjacent Evangelical Christian groups.

Personally, as a human rights lawyer, I'm done with feminism. No longer is it activated and advanced by the need to advance equal rights for women, but by the need for spite and attack on human rights of others. Feminism with its philosophical adjacency with American ultra-right wing groups has become a danger to girls and humanity.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Stock is not a scientist either, yet I witnessed you defending her as if she is. Stock willfully misuses science in argument. She also willfully misuses her own academic area - philosophy.

K Stock has never claimed to be a scientist. Her views on biological sex are the same as that of established science. Two sexes, variation within; immutable. The rest of your post is your opinion only.

Mark Hay is not a scientist. He is a journalist. As such he writes in an often entertaining style. However I can not recall seeing him willfully misquoting scientists, often providing links to articles written by qualified authors.

Hay says 'some women have high testosterone levels' then links to an article about a male with a dsd - Caster Semenya. You can't get more disingenuous than that. In the article Hay doesn't misquote outright, he simply uses the links as support for his own statements, opinions presented as fact that on examination they don't actually support.

Hay churns out clickbait for Vice.com that reflect his personal views. Like you, he relies on casual readers taking statements of opinion as established fact.

 

[monkers]

K Stock has never claimed to be a scientist.

Did I say she had? This is dishonesty.

Now think about your preference to believe what she said about the Swedish report in preference to what the author said. And while you are at it, consider why she was presenting scientific evidence to the all party select committee as if she knew what she was talking about.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Stock (along with Law Prof Rosa Freedman and Sociology Prof Alice Sullivan) presented exactly what the research said, along with UK Ministry of Justice data. Later one of the authors said it shouldn't be extrapolated to suggest all transwomen are rapists. Nobody suggested it should be, but there is no reason to discount the clearly stated results of the initial research and Dhejne hasn't contradicted her own team's actual findings.

The Swedish study was a sociological study not a medical or biological one btw so Stock, Freedman, and Sullivan, are as qualified to comment on it as anyone.

They were members of one of dozens of groups, and 2,000 individuals, who submitted oral and written evidence to the 2020 GRA inquiry. Many trans people including Stephen Whittle, Alex Sharpe, Robin Moira White, gave oral evidence. Nanci Kelly (Stonewall) and Lou Asquith (Mermaids) also gave oral evidence. Over 30 trans rights organisations submitted written evidence.

You have a bee in your bonnet about Kathleen Stock but her group submission was as valid as that of anybody else.

 

[monkers]

You have a bee in your bonnet about Kathleen Stock but her group submission was as valid as that of anybody else.

Ask a Swedish lawyer. She's an awful woman; not popular with other academics either.

 

[monkers]

The Swedish study was a sociological study not a medical or biological one btw so Stock, Freedman, and Sullivan, are as qualified to comment on it as anyone.

This is exactly my point. Hay is dismissed by you as not being a scientist. However, Stock, at least according to you is a non-scientist but as free to comment as anyone. Stock misrepresented the findings of the Swedish study. In Sweden the study was accepted as legitimate and led to a change in the law.

I guess you will remember that Swedish law at that time was still to sterilise people, and that had such fascination for the Nazis.

You are easily trapped and exposed.