Gender again. Sorry!

[winjim]

I started off wanting to know more about the issue and at the start it was very illuminating, but for a while now has generated far more heat than light. There is some occasional stuff of interest but has to be searched for amidst the acrimony and mud-slinging whataboutery over which side has the nastiest supporters and which is twisting the other's words.

I'm afraid I can't pretend I never participate in that although I do try to avoid getting sucked into it. The actions of a few extremists aren't really relevent to my thoughts on the subject, which to me is sex and gender, not specifically trans and women's rights.

 

[monkers]

I started off wanting to know more about the issue and at the start it was very illuminating, but for a while now has generated far more heat than light. There is some occasional stuff of interest but has to be searched for amidst the acrimony and mud-slinging whataboutery over which side has the nastiest supporters and which is twisting the other's words.

That's a fair summary.

 

[matticus]

I'm afraid I can't pretend I never participate in that although I do try to avoid getting sucked into it. The actions of a few extremists aren't really relevent to my thoughts on the subject, which to me is sex and gender, not specifically trans and women's rights.

You need to make up your mind. Are you:
- intellectually curious with a scientific mind+knowledge, or
- creator of heat, chucking in ableist when it suits you to put down someone's reply to your "helpful" question.
?

You have enough history of asking leading, "rhetorical" questions to make anyone sceptical of your motives. x

 

[winjim]

You need to make up your mind. Are you:
- intellectually curious with a scientific mind+knowledge, or
- creator of heat, chucking in ableist when it suits you to put down someone's reply to your "helpful" question.
?

You have enough history of asking leading, "rhetorical" questions to make anyone sceptical of your motives. x

Oh do f*ck off.

 

[monkers]

That does seem kind of vague to me. Any chance you could be more specific? If there was a person in front of you and you had to assign them a category of 'man' or 'woman', how would you go about it?

Remember I'm trying to find an 'easy' system of categorising all individuals with no exceptions. (I guess we could allow some exceptions if we put them in the 'not woman' pile since the original question was, as it always seems to be, 'what is a woman' but let's set that aside.)

Unwittingly AS is exercising a sifting mechanism whereby she is sorting by reproductive sex, but the issued kit is not strictly binary, so when that mechanism fails to sift precisely, as it always will because of the menopause, she sorts by what reproductive organs people used to have if they are cis, but uses the opposite rule if the are trans. The fact that we are in the category of mammals meaning that the females have breasts is skipped because that would not be helpful, making trans women actually women as it would. So we must skip to the non-reproductive sifting stage, such as chromosomes, but there are too many difficulties here because chromosomal sex is not binary. That leaves what is perhaps the final sift, and unwittingly she is using gender identity then - women are women coz they are, so yaboo shucks, that's how I do it.

 

[multitool]

Presumably her invite from the BBC and ITN got lost in the post?

Have you listened to the interview?

What she says to Brewer is remarkably manicured. "All we are saying is can we please have women only spaces". Why doesn't she say the sort of things she says on her podcasts and rallies calling TW paedophiles etc?

Funny that.

For all the understandable comments here about "heat" and so on and the desire for an informed discussion of sex and gender, that isn't what is being beamed into people's faces by TV channels with millions of viewers.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Have you listened to the interview?
What she says to Brewer is remarkably manicured. "All we are saying is can we please have women only spaces". Why doesn't she say the sort of things she says on her podcasts and rallies calling TW paedophiles etc?
Funny that.
For all the understandable comments here about "heat" and so on and the desire for an informed discussion of sex and gender, that isn't what is being beamed into people's faces by TV channels with millions of viewers.

Are you talking about BBC & ITV, because the shockjock channels of TalkTV and GBNews just get viewers of less than 50k each per programme? Even their 'star' Piers Morgan averages only around 20k.

I cannot remember seeing much inflammatory stuff on the topic on the two big channels, but then I only watch a couple of hours a day.

 

[multitool]

Are you talking about BBC & ITV, because the shockjock channels of TalkTV and GBNews just get viewers of less than 50k each per programme? Even their 'star' Piers Morgan averages only around 20k.

I cannot remember seeing much inflammatory stuff on the topic on the two big channels, but then I only watch a couple of hours a day.

That is a fair point, and "millions" is likely to be an overestimate, but remember also that methods of viewing have changed from TV sets to all sorts of peripheral devices that may not be tuning in directly to the TV channel.

For example, JHB has posted up that clip on her twitter account. She has 433k followers. That doesn't mean that all of them will see it, but equally many will see it who are not followers. That twitter clip alone has accrued 180k views in just 3 hours.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That is a fair point, and "millions" is likely to be an overestimate, but remember also that methods of viewing have changed from TV sets to all sorts of peripheral devices that may not be tuning in directly to the TV channel.

For example, JHB has posted up that clip on her twitter account. She has 433k followers. That doesn't mean that all of them will see it, but equally many will see it who are not followers. That twitter clip alone has accrued 180k views in just 3 hours.

I suspect the regular followers of JHB will learn nothing that they do not already believe and do not watch her to have their views challenged.

Twitter is the last place to look for anyone who is after unbiased viewpoints.

 

[multitool]

I suspect the regular followers of JHB will learn nothing that they do not already believe and do not watch her to have their views challenged.

Twitter is the last place to look for anyone who is after unbiased viewpoints.

Only in so far as it is a very polarising form of media,but at the same time to a large extent it is the news.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Only in so far as it is a very polarising form of media,but at the same time to a large extent it is the news.

 

[icowden]

Have you listened to the interview?

No, but your point seemed to be that KJK had chosen to appear on JHB's show rather than anything else.
My point is that you tend to go where you are allowed to go. If channels with large reach such as the BBC aren't interested in interviewing her, then she ends up on channels with no reach but want to interview her.

 

[multitool]

No, but your point seemed to be that KJK had chosen to appear on JHB's show rather than anything else.

That wasn't my point at all. Keen will go wherever she is offered a platform. My point is that she gives a very gilded version of herself. In person she points out TW and shouts at them calling them "predators", "groomers" and "fetishists", amongst other things. Hardly just saying "can we please just have our own spaces". It's straight out of the US far-right playbook.

As @winjim says, Keen is somewhat of a cùnt. And despite Aurora's claims to the contrary it isn't just a mere unfortunate coincidence that neo-nazis keep showing up to her rallies, it's part of a growing congruence between the so-called gender critical movement and the far-right:

https://transsafety.network/posts/far-right-converge/

And before anybody questions the KJK quote in that article where she claims grooming gangs cut up a woman and sold her meat, here it is from her own mouth:


View: https://twitter.com/ICanSeeForever1/status/1640340060145852417?s=20

 

[icowden]

You really are sounding quite nuts. I did not say they were not guilty, I quoted the judge as saying low culpability and low injury. He did so because of the acknowledged provocation.

Point of order, this was your actual statement:-

In other words Wolf was not found guilty of a violent beating of a harmless 70 year old innocent female bystander. The camera is more relevant to the case for its usage than its breakage.

Fair enough if you stated this in error, but you did state that Wolf was not found guilty. They were.

Whataboutery. This has no validity to your claim that trans women who have been taking HRT are rapists. Clearly the probability is infinitesimally small. These various and spurious facts that you claim, that these women could be guilty of rape just as often or more than cis men is too ridiculous for words.

I think we are nitpicking a little. If transwomen are women and any man who says that they are now a women is a transwoman, then it follows that there are transwomen who have not taken HRT, or any sort of therapy or surgery. I think this is the nub of @AuroraSaab's position and that of many people who think that we need to have some boundaries.

The World Athletics Association has recognised that women's sport needs to be protected from men who identify as women but who have a distinct biological advantage. The justice system has been thrown into the spotlight as it seems unfair that someone like Barbie Kardashian who has not had hormone treatment and who has sworn to kill and mutilate women, should be housed in a women's prison just because they say they are now a woman. Many women seem to feel that the gender of woman is being devalued if anyone can join. Given the historical fight for equality for and the fight for homosexual and lesbian rights, many fear that without any sort of boundary or limit, there are significant risks to women.

The risks do not come from people who are genuinely disordered and want to take medication and have surgery in an attempt to transform themselves into something that their mental health can live with, and no one wants to see these people suffer unduly. It is the people (man) who will take advantage of the system that raises cause for concern.

 

[multitool]

I suspect the regular followers of JHB will learn nothing that they do not already believe and do not watch her to have their views challenged.

Twitter is the last place to look for anyone who is after unbiased viewpoints.

You are probably right, but the counter point to that is to ask how they were introduced to those views in the first place.


And here's the next step, a government minister:


View: https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1640267395892649985?s=20


Step three will be to try and engage Starmer on this