Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Nice to start with a bit of ageism, Ian. Are you saying the 99.9% of scientists who believe you can't change your sex doesn't include younger people? Grasping at straws, mate.

Your link is on the opinion piece page of SciAm and is by someone who describes themselves as 'transexual androgyne' - no chance of personal bias creeping in there then?

It follows the well worn path of conflating sex and gender and then trying to claim that because there are occasionally people who are born with chromosomal anomalies or atypical genitalia then sex isn't binary in mammals.

It's debunked at length by a biologist here.

View: https://twitter.com/wet_hen/status/1213130009814036485


Your link is an opinion piece. Do you have any thing peer reviewed that shows sex isn't binary in mammals?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not a 'sub set' of anything either.
But I don't claim a whole gender as my.own , nor do I claim a right to define the gender of others.

Following the science in this case isn't enough by itself..
This isn't like fighting a virus.

We as people are not just biological soup, walking around in a human shaped membrane.
The societal aspects of all this are important too.


'Scientism' ie the putting of science on a pedestal, and having primacy over and above all other considerations has also been used to oppress people, when it's seen as convenient to do so.

I don't call any of my friends cis anything , I refer to them by their names.

We both know that terms such as cis, or poc for example are used in much broader conversations about whole identity groups , in say policy making, they're not usually used about individuals - that would be ridiculous.

If you think there are 2 different types of women, you must be a subset of your own sex.

You are conflating sex and gender to uphold an ideological stance that is not supported by science. Biology existed before and will exist long after any human society disappears.

This is just desperate mental gymnastics.

 

[Ian H]

Nice to start with a bit of ageism, Ian. Are you saying the 99.9% of scientists who believe you can't change your sex doesn't include younger people? Grasping at straws, mate.

Your link is on the opinion piece page of SciAm and is by someone who describes themselves as 'transexual androgyne' - no chance of personal bias creeping in there then?

It follows the well worn path of conflating sex and gender and then trying to claim that because there are occasionally people who are born with chromosomal anomalies or atypical genitalia then sex isn't binary in mammals.

It's debunked at length by a biologist here.

View: https://twitter.com/wet_hen/status/1213130009814036485


Your link is an opinion piece. Do you have any thing peer reviewed that shows sex isn't binary in mammals?

You mean the article is wrong because someone on Twitter says so?

 

[newfhouse]

an expert in the field,

What field? I don’t think it is sociology or human interaction. In everyday life I neither know nor care exactly how your chromosomes are arranged, and I try not to obsess about most people’s genitals.

 

[matticus]

 

[Poacher]

I understand that, I'm eluding to the fact I don't need to.

Good news @shep , you have a secret admirer - possibly several if you count Sam's multiplicity of alter egos.

 

[newfhouse]

View attachment 2780

Pretending that biology is all that counts and trying to top trump any argument about human behaviour through calls to disputed authority misses the point by a mile, don’t you think? Vagueness dispelled?

 

[mudsticks]

If you think there are 2 different types of women, you must be a subset of your own sex.

You are conflating sex and gender to uphold an ideological stance that is not supported by science. Biology existed before and will exist long after any human society disappears.

This is just desperate mental gymnastics.

Not at all desperate, it's just a recognition that 'biology' as we understand it doesn't cover the whole range of human experiences.
As humans we have (what we believe to be) a unique consciousness of things such as selfhood, and personal choice and autonomy.

I'm not particularly bothered about being a 'subset' of my own sex, I can live with that if by doing so it means that transgender people are not oppressed .

Personally I'm far more bothered about oppression via the kind of toxic machismo, and general mysogyny, that is far more oppressive to women, and which is also far more prevalent in our society.
Like I said if we tackle that at root, everyone would be a lot safer..

Women, transpeople, gay people, disabled and anyone else who currently lives under fear of violence, would all be able to live their lives more fully.

Pretending that biology is all that counts and trying to top trump any argument about human behaviour through calls to disputed authority misses the point by a mile, don’t you think? Vagueness dispelled?

This was my point about scientism.

We're talking about human beings, and (hopefully) how they flourish as individuals within an interdependent society.

Science doest trump everything when we're talking about how we behave towards each other and make policy and space for each other as humans .

That way lies eugenics, and the justification for other sorts of oppression.

 

[matticus]

Pretending that biology is all that counts and trying to top trump any argument about human behaviour through calls to disputed authority misses the point by a mile, don’t you think? Vagueness dispelled?

Thankyou for trying. x
But no marks for execution ...

this thread (and many others) have already covered the human behaviour (and such elusive concepts as not being shitty to others) in quite some depth, so if you think your post is adding anything, please try harder. ( Indeed IMO they are the nub of the debate, but it's a fluid situation... )

As for the "calls to authority": well, again, you don't need to dig far to find scientific sources that backup Aurora's point. It was, after all, IanH's appeal to authority that started that particular diversion. The debate has moved on without your vague nonsense.

But as I said - thanks for trying!

 

[winjim]

Other (not as brainy as Jim) Biochemists are available

I very much doubt that, but certainly much brainier ones are.

Interestingly my year was the first cohort to have a lecture on laboratory medicine in the care of transgender people. It was introductory and non-examinable but it is something we think about. Lots of potential pitfalls and things to bear in mind.

Obviously my post about the use of the word 'cis' was slightly tongue in cheek, it's a different context, but yes I do use it when referring to gender if the context requires it.

 

[newfhouse]

Indeed IMO they are the nub of the debate

I’m pleased to find we are in accord.

As for the "calls to authority": well, again, you don't need to dig far to find scientific sources that backup Aurora's point

Yes, but haven’t we agreed that behaviour is far more important than biology?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Good news @shep , you have a secret admirer - possibly several if you count Sam's multiplicity of alter egos.

Wtf is going on there?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Yes, but haven’t we agreed that behaviour is far more important than biology?

That might be a good start.
It would still leave the questions regarding trans sport categories and women only spaces unanswered though.

 

[winjim]

Wtf is going on there?

Madness and genius in varying proportions.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Madness and genius in varying proportions.

That's enough about me...but it's poor form, surely....