Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Legendary Member
Again, you're wrong, but we have been over this umpteen times and I'm simply not going over it again.

It wasn't an invitation to go over it all again, it was an invitation to remember what you'd already agreed. As I had said, you are now just reverting to type.

Time and again we are not seeing any development in rational argument, just the same old prejudices (and denials) being played out.
 
Last edited:
I agreed no such thing. Crack on with the rewriting, slurs, and desperate hyperbole though. It's all you have left because you abandoned science, rationality, and critical thinking quite some time ago.
 
Just for today, this excellent book is just 99p on kindle at Amazon uk. No idea why the blurb says gender bias. Perez is very clear that it's about data bias, and further that it's usually not a deliberate or intentional bias. It's more simply overlooking the female body and treating the male body as the default, eg. in medical trials, designing seatbelts, and so on.


Amazon product ASIN B07CQ2NZG6View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Women-Exposing-World-Designed-ebook/dp/B07CQ2NZG6/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1678099675&sr=8-1
 

monkers

Legendary Member
It's true that I've stopped repeating all of that, because you don't recognise it anyway.

I can't stop you cracking on (though I might sometimes wish that I could) about women being no more than a walking vagina with some protected status as such.

As a woman I am not possessed with notions of vaginas having human rights all of their own, which is how your presentation of what being a woman is making me feel. You have the freedom to think of yourself that way if you wish, but it's not for me, and it is not what the law says, no matter how you pretend otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Acknowledging that women's oppression is based on their biology is not reducing women to body parts. Ironically, imagining that you can be a woman because of how you feel, or what you wear, is reductive. It reduces being a woman to a feeling in a man's head and to a costume that anyone can adopt.

You can likewise think of yourself in any way you wish. Wishful thinking doesn't change material reality though, and your magical thinking shouldn't be the basis of legislation that impinges on others.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
It reduces being a woman to a feeling in a man's head and to a costume that anyone can adopt.

Oh dear, so now you want to leave it to men to decide what a woman is allowed to be. I'd rather leave it to each person to decide who they are, than have someone tell me who I'm allowed to be. My position is the one that happens to coincide with UK and international law. You desire change; it's all in your head though, poor you.

It's your desire for legislative change that impinges on others. I'd rather leave the law as it is than change to your world view.
 
Nope, I didn't say that, as you well know. Unfortunately for you it's biology that decides which sex you are. Your feelings don't come into it, though of course you can present yourself in whatever way you feel comfortable.

I don't desire legislative change. I'd like the current law on single sex spaces and services to be preserved and implemented, with additional provision for trans people if necessary. You can continue to misrepresent what I say and what UK law says as much as you like but the fact remains that men can never be women and men trying to gain access to women's spaces and services is an act of oppression.
 
I am saying that you repeatedly insist that there are more than 2 sexes and that people can identify into the opposite sex class. I am saying that this is not the case because a) millions of years of evolution tell us differently, and b) identifying as something is not being that thing . If someone is born male, they are not female nor will they ever be female.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
I am saying that you repeatedly insist that there are more than 2 sexes and that people can identify into the opposite sex class. I am saying that this is not the case because a) millions of years of evolution tell us differently, and b) identifying as something is not being that thing . If someone is born male, they are not female nor will they ever be female.
I've said no such thing. Even if I had it would provide no basis for your answer to my question. So let's try again.

Why is unfortunate for me to be female?
 
This endless tit for tat adds nothing to the thread so unless anybody has something new on the topic to add I'll leave you to it.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
This endless tit for tat adds nothing to the thread so unless anybody has something new on the topic to add I'll leave you to it.

It was a fair question - why are you unable to provide an answer?

Why am I unfortunate to be female?

This isn't tit for tat Aurora - you seem to be saying something, why not substantiate it?
 
I didn't say it was unfortunate for anybody to be female. I said it was unfortunate for you (ie your argument on the issue of sex) that the science of biology is the arbiter of who is male or female not how a person feels about themselves.

These imaginary 'gotchas' that rely on wilful misunderstandings are utterly pointless. You really have nothing new to bring to the discussion.
 

monkers

Legendary Member
I didn't say it was unfortunate for anybody to be female. I said it was unfortunate for you (ie your argument on the issue of sex) that the science of biology is the arbiter of who is male or female not how a person feels about themselves.

These imaginary 'gotchas' that rely on wilful misunderstandings are utterly pointless. You really have nothing new to bring to the discussion.

It was no 'gotcha' question. Did you imagine you were easily understood?

My argument on the issue of sex? You don't seem to be able to remember what I've said, since you said this earlier today.

I am saying that you repeatedly insist that there are more than 2 sexes and that people can identify into the opposite sex class.

As I have 'repeatedly insisted' it, you'd find it easy to find where I've said it even once. What I have challenged is this GC claim that sex is 'binary and immutable', since it isn't. Nature intends our species to be capable of reproduction, therefore reproductive sex is binary. That people exist without the capacity for reproduction due to difference in their biology illustrates the fact that reproductive sex is not binary, but it doesn't stop them from being human, or from having feelings such as maternal or paternal instinct.

A good many people live and have lived without even knowing that their own chromosomes do not fit the usual pattern. Sex may be binary for people who are fertile, but that isn't everybody. I don't know what my own chromosomal make up is. I don't know if I was ever fertile - I know I'm not now though.

The science of sex is not yet settled, that much biologists tend to agree, so the absolutist stance is not a valid one. Some scientists have said that sex is a spectrum. My knowledge will not compare to theirs, but I think the term 'spectrum' may be unhelpful as a model.

Neither have I said anywhere that I think it possible to change biological sex in its entirety, but then an appreciation of hormone therapy means that I am able to understand that it is possible to change some aspects of a person's sex, and that one aspect of change alone is sufficient to bring them much comfort.

I am also able to understand that it is not only some trans people who seek surgical alteration to their bodies, and when they do they are not subject to the same kinds of ridicule or abuse as trans people so often are. It's not often you'll hear trans people talk about 'sex changes', that'll be cis people being disparaging about trans people. Genital reconstruction is not 'sex change'.

Some women seek breast enlargement, reduction, or reconstruction. The conversation around this carries a range of opinions, ranging from 'my body, my right' opinion, to some pretty grim assessment made by others concerning the range of reasons women opt for surgery. I think it important to distinguish between procedures which are purely cosmetic to feel good about our bodies, and ones which are important to feel right in our bodies, rather than generalise without some nuance.

If it is right for women to seek one or more of a range of surgeries, to please themselves, why not men, why not trans women, and why not trans men?

Otherwise what I have tried repeatedly to tell you is that, it is not my position that a person can change their biological sex, but that parliament introduced law to say that; 1) people can legally change the recorded sex, and 2) that the law requires each of us to respect that and not negatively discriminate against those that do.

Our chief area of disagreement is that I am steeped in that old British maxim which says that 'a little kindness goes a long way', whereas you openly say that you are not prepared to be kind, at least not to those you have a prejudice against.

Instead you tend to prefer some fake mantra such as 'Woman: adult human female'. Which of course, is a statement with a deception contained within, since it conveys the message that there is no such thing as gender identity.

I know this is wrong since I have always had a gender identity, and probably always will have. On the other hand, I've never had maternal instinct, but it doesn't prevent me from understanding that other women have it.
 
Last edited:
It was no 'gotcha' question. Did you imagine you were easily understood?

My argument on the issue of sex? You don't seem to be able to remember what I've said, since you said this earlier today.

As I have 'repeatedly insisted' it, you'd find it easy to find where I've said it even once. What I have challenged is this GC claim that sex is 'binary and immutable', since it isn't. Nature intends our species to be capable of reproduction, therefore reproductive sex is binary. That people exist without the capacity for reproduction due to difference in their biology illustrates the fact that reproductive sex is not binary, but it doesn't stop them from being human, or from having feelings such as maternal or paternal instinct.

A good many people live and have lived without even knowing that their own chromosomes do not fit the usual pattern. Sex may be binary for people who are fertile, but that isn't everybody. I don't know what my own chromosomal make up is. I don't know if I was ever fertile - I know I'm not now though.

The science of sex is not yet settled, that much biologists tend to agree, so the absolutist stance is not a valid one. Some scientists have said that sex is a spectrum. My knowledge will not compare to theirs, but I think the term 'spectrum' may be unhelpful as a model.

Neither have I said anywhere that I think it possible to change biological sex in its entirety, but then an appreciation of hormone therapy means that I am able to understand that it is possible to change some aspects of a person's sex, and that one aspect of change alone is sufficient to bring them much comfort.

I am also able to understand that it is not only some trans people who seek surgical alteration to their bodies, and when they do they are not subject to the same kinds of ridicule or abuse as trans people so often are. It's not often you'll hear trans people talk about 'sex changes', that'll be cis people being disparaging about trans people. Genital reconstruction is not 'sex change'.

Some women seek breast enlargement, reduction, or reconstruction. The conversation around this carries a range of opinions, ranging from 'my body, my right' opinion, to some pretty grim assessment made by others concerning the range of reasons women opt for surgery. I think it important to distinguish between procedures which are purely cosmetic to feel good about our bodies, and ones which are important to feel right in our bodies, rather than generalise without some nuance.

If it is right for women to seek one or more of a range of surgeries, to please themselves, why not men, why not trans women, and why not trans men?

Otherwise what I have tried repeatedly to tell you is that, it is not my position that a person can change their biological sex, but that parliament introduced law to say that; 1) people can legally change the recorded sex, and 2) that the law requires each of us to respect that and not negatively discriminate against those that do.

We have covered all this stuff ad infinitum already. There really is zero point in going over it again.
Our chief area of disagreement is that I am steeped in that old British maxim which says that 'a little kindness goes a long way', whereas you openly say that you are not prepared to be kind, at least not to those you have a prejudice against.
Disingenuous rewriting of what I have said as per usual. I'm not prepared to cave in to the demands of transactivists just to look like I am being kind. The kindness you demand comes at a cost to others. You could be kind and campaign for third spaces and extra provision for trans people rather than demanding access to women's single sex facilities, services, and sports.

Instead you tend to prefer some fake mantra such as 'Woman: adult human female'. Which of course, is a statement with a deception contained within, since it conveys the message that there is no such thing as gender identity.

I know this is wrong since I have always had a gender identity, and probably always will have. On the other hand, I've never had maternal instinct, but it doesn't prevent me from understanding that other women have it.

Good for you. Lots of people will tell you they don't have a gender identity, me included. Lots of people think we all have a soul. I don't believe that either. As there's no objective test for whether gender identity exists, or what someone's gender might be, it seems a pretty nebulous concept around which to base legislation. Unlike sex, which is immutable and a material reality.
 
Top Bottom