Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

It would be a clarification not a redefinition. Necessary only because people like you have attempted to redefine the words male and female to pretend they don't refer to distinct groups.

You are talking bollocks again. I haven't attempted to redefine anything. I have never been a legislator in any parliament or any judge in any court. Nor am I Suzy Dent. The difference between us is that because I can read and apply critical thinking, I tend to.

You clearly haven't read the documents or links to text that you've been provided with. You just carry on trying to twist everything to your own narrow bigoted view.

There's so much gish-gallop that no person can call you out on everything. All you say is upside down, inside out, or back to front, or maybe spinning.

Religious zealots interpret sex according to some biblical bollocks about sex, marriage, and knocking out sprogs.

The feminista thought they were liberating women from the patriarchy, which failed because the patriarchy are not all men -
just the rich ones, who then said fair enough, if you won't let your husbands enslave you in domestic chores and sex on demand, and child-rearing duties, you can work for peanuts in our factories instead. All two incomes to a family achieved was pushing house prices and rents up to the point that women don't have the choice but to work, and put off having children. Yeh, I was one of them. Naive weren't we?

These days I'm more of a smash the fash kind of girl.

We have advanced though, we all have convention rights, and the right to effective remedy before the law.

In your own case you are just some manic control freak who values her opinion so highly that she thinks she is sovereign. You ain't matey - you've got Musk syndrome, just without his money.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

These days I'm more of a smash the fash kind of girl.

Puerile. Big job though given your somewhat extensive list of Nazis.

 

[Ian H]

It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.
Biology doesn't change because of anybodies feelings.

https://webcache.googleusercontent....is-behind-many-differences-between-the-sexes/
It is becoming ever clearer that environment and culture may be determining traits we think are down to male or female biology, says neuroscientist Gina Rippon

 

[monkers]

Puerile. Big job though given your somewhat extensive list of Nazis.

Not like you to miss contextual clues in a post - you've always had such a sharp eye.

 

[AuroraSaab]

These days I'm more of a smash the fash kind of girl.

Lol. I think not.

https://webcache.googleusercontent....is-behind-many-differences-between-the-sexes/
It is becoming ever clearer that environment and culture may be determining traits we think are down to male or female biology, says neuroscientist Gina Rippon

Yes, Gina Ripon says there's no such thing as a male or female brain. Which means nobody born male can have a female brain in a male body or 'feel like a woman'. This would mean being trans can't be innate.

This of course doesn't mean that women aren't treated differently because of their biology. They are, and one effect of that is that they need women only spaces and services at times.

 

[monkers]

Which means nobody born male can have a female brain in a male body or 'feel like a woman'. This would mean being trans can't be innate.

Oh my good gawd; I thought you said you know something about science. Scientists may be able to look for differences and similarities in structures between brains, but they haven't perfected Vulcan mind melding yet. Yes the other half has Star Trek on the tele (she's a big fan).

 

[Ian H]

Yes, Gina Ripon says there's no such thing as a male or female brain. Which means nobody born male can have a female brain in a male body or 'feel like a woman'. This would mean being trans can't be innate.

As she says - This suggests that social and cultural constructions can have a core role in determining neural and behavioural outcomes, including those of those of sex and gender.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, social conditioning and experiences makes men and women 'behave' differently.
An example Ripon often gives is video games. Men are said to be good at video games because of better spatial skill - and the brain scans show this part of the brain looks a bit different in such men. But if you get women to play video games just as much as the men their spatial skill catches up and the brain scans change to reflect that.

Explained by Ripon here:

https://undark.org/2019/09/06/myth-male-female-brain-gendered/

Much research on sexed brains has been 'hunt the difference' - finding tiny differences between male and female brains which are really insignificant and not actually any different than the variation between same sex brains.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Jesus wept.
In the old days it was simple. Sex is binary, gender is a social construct. Fill your boots however you feel gender wise.
Now, after 15,000,000 pages of obfuscatory drivel from @monkers and her imaginary friends, @Ian H realises that gender isn't a binary relationship with sex.

 

[Ian H]

Jesus wept.
In the old days it was simple. Sex is binary, gender is a social construct. Fill your boots however you feel gender wise.
Now, after 15,000,000 pages of obfuscatory drivel from @monkers and her imaginary friends, @Ian H realises that gender isn't a binary relationship with sex.

Nothing new there. Now tell us about gender reassignment.

 

[monkers]

Jesus wept.
In the old days it was simple. Sex is binary, gender is a social construct. Fill your boots however you feel gender wise.
Now, after 15,000,000 pages of obfuscatory drivel from @monkers and her imaginary friends, @Ian H realises that gender isn't a binary relationship with sex.

Seems that your lack of sense of reality with numbers is way beyond Aurora's lack of sense of reality. Well done.

Now read the Christine Goodwin judgement and have your mind blown. What they said was that though this material biological difference between the sexes was real, it is not the only consideration, since who we are also relates to our social conditioning. Aurora has just fascinated herself with this new evidence, coming to the conclusion that it proves that gender identity can not exist, whereas seventeen judges at the hearing unanimously determined the opposite. I'm sure that like Aurora you've convinced yourself that you are smarter.

N knows this stuff and quoted it verbatim a couple of days ago. But of course you were up to your usual tricks of simply sniping from the sidelines thinking that you were outsmarting people like fancy lawyers, or pretending they can't be real because for one thing they are trans, and for another they can't possibly have aunts.


So here it is again just for you Bob, because you are so special ...

100. It is true that the first sentence refers in express terms to the right of a man and woman to marry. The Court is not persuaded that at the date of this case it can still be assumed that these terms must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria (as held by Ormrod J. in the case of Corbett v. Corbett, paragraph 21 above). There have been major social changes in the institution of marriage since the adoption of the Convention as well as dramatic changes brought about by developments in medicine and science in the field of transsexuality. The Court has found above, under Article 8 of the Convention, that a test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual. There are other important factors – the acceptance of the condition of gender identity disorder by the medical professions and health authorities within Contracting States, the provision of treatment including surgery to assimilate the individual as closely as possible to the gender in which they perceive that they properly belong and the assumption by the transsexual of the social role of the assigned gender. The Court would also note that Article 9 of the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union departs, no doubt deliberately, from the wording of Article 12 of the Convention in removing the reference to men and women (see paragraph 58 above).

 

[monkers]

Lol. I think not.

Bob managed to miss what you saw. Bless.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Seems that your lack of sense of reality with numbers is way beyond Aurora's lack of sense of reality. Well done.

Now read the Christine Goodwin judgement and have your mind blown. What they said was that though this material biological difference between the sexes was real, it is not the only consideration, since who we are also relates to our social conditioning. Aurora has just fascinated herself with this new evidence, coming to the conclusion that it proves that gender identity can not exist, whereas seventeen judges at the hearing unanimously determined the opposite. I'm sure that like Aurora you've convinced yourself that you are smarter.

N knows this stuff and quoted it verbatim a couple of days ago. But of course you were up to your usual tricks of simply sniping from the sidelines thinking that you were outsmarting people like fancy lawyers, or pretending they can't be real because for one thing they are trans, and for another they can't possibly have aunts.


So here it is again just for you Bob, because you are so special ...

Nothing new there. Now tell us about gender reassignment.

Any particular aspect? Or is this an open ended post grad research assignment?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Aurora has just fascinated herself with this new evidence, coming to the conclusion that it proves that gender identity can not exist,

Saying there are no distinct organic differences between male and female brains doesn't mean gender identity doesn't exist - because gender identity (in those that believe in it) is a creation of the mind, like the belief in a soul. It does however undermine the 'born in the wrong body' narrative and the 'I've got a woman's brain' thing that trans ideology has pushed for so long.

whereas seventeen judges at the hearing unanimously determined the opposite. I'm sure that like Aurora you've convinced yourself that you are smarter.

The Goodwin judgement said nothing of the sort. It acknowledged that doctors accept gender incongruance as a condition and that in effect credit should be given for undertaking genital removal surgery. They made no finding that gender identity is real other than using the term 'the gender they perceive they belong'.

The judgement is online.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-60596%22]}

N knows this stuff and quoted it verbatim a couple of days ago.

What you claim was being recited from memory verbatim was a cut and paste from the link above. Just like your other quote to Bob was, though this time you left the paragraph number (100) in.

 

[monkers]

What you claim was being recited from memory verbatim was a cut and paste from the link above. Just like your other quote to Bob was, though this time you left the paragraph number (100) in.

Listen dickhead, I said N knows it verbatim. I don't, so I had to cut n paste it. Engage brain before flapping gums eh.

And likewise the cut n paste with the figure '100' within. I left it in so people could easily see where it came from and look it up.

You stop at nothing to try to discredit a person. What a farking moron.