Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

They are killed far less frequently than women. Only 10 in the last 15 years or so. They are a safe demographic in the UK. Far safer than women.

We mustn't forget your lack of numeracy skills. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone else (maybe not CRXAndy) that to compare numbers of victims of one group to another they must be the same size or adjusted on a per head of capita basis.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales

Hate crime is rising. Propaganda is a feature. You gish gallop propaganda against trans people. You are part of the driving force behind this.
You can not justify this with the words, 'not required or prepared to be kind'. You are actively cruel to trans people - and every day at that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

So in short, there's nothing helpful there either in defining 'what a woman is'. Every attempt to define what a woman is, even by women, fails.

So let's just let us women say, 'I am a woman'. Job done.

 

[monkers]

Provide the full quote for context.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Almost?
As in not exclusively?
Just like the lass that got you back posting on this thread. Who'd planned on what she'd do to her victim. But for you the fact that there was a lad as her accomplice, who was involved in some parts of the planning, it makes it less important that the lead person was a woman(female to suit you). It removes/excuses some of the blame/responsibility for her actions in sticking a knife into another person with the intention of taking a life.

There's not a country in the world that records crime where women are responsible for more than a very small percentage of sex crimes or murders. I've never said there aren't female murderers but you revelling in the fact that there is one doesn't make it a common occurance.

 

[monkers]

Baron Cohen's assertion seems to be that some differences in cognitive ability are due to organic/structural differences in the brain. Ripon says there are no significantly measurable organic/structural differences - which seems to be the view of other neurologists. In fact she does talk about neural plasticity - girls might have certain areas of the brain that look different but doing certain tasks regularly makes these areas look like the same area on boys. I think playing video games was her example. So are boys naturally better at video games? Or does a certain area of their brain look a certain way because they are socialised to play video games far more and girls aren't? And even if brains look a little different on scans how do we know how that translates to brain function, if it even translates at all?

This was my reply to this.

So in short, there's nothing helpful there either in defining 'what a woman is'. Every attempt to define what a woman is, even by women, fails.

So let's just let us women say, 'I am a woman'. Job done.

Context and nuance are everything. You were unable to backup your claims when questioned.

What I posited was the only response to your failure. If you can't support your own argument against self-Id then the response has to be to allow self-Id.

My actual opinions on self-Id have been stated clearly a number of times. But I'll briefly state it again for you. The promises made to trans people in the GRA are being broken. Trans people were promised the apparatus of the state to transition in two years. Nobody achieves that.

Trans people are left withering on the vine without healthcare for their needs for years. As I explained to you before in an early post, trans women have been given the access to hormone treatment, but then otherwise neglected for years. This results in such atrophy that then they are often not able to go forward for surgery.

This, despite your complaint that many trans women retain 'a penis'. I have described to you that such a penis is no longer capable of being a sexual organ, it becomes nothing but a urethra. You seized upon this with glee. Remember your never-ending references to 'floppy penises' thereafter?

My position has been stated thus - I agree with the parliamentary select committees (both of them) that came to the conclusion that given the failures of the state to provide healthcare, and the lack of desire to fund what parliament had promised, then a suitable system of self-Id was necessary (I did not say 'ideal').

I've also said that given these political choices to underfund the system, then the Scottish system looked to be a step in the right direction, even if not ideal.

I resort to taking this piss out of you because your head contains what seems to be a moral vacuum.

I have previously urged you to campaign against this rotten government who have not just underfunded the systems required to provide the healthcare for trans people. Instead you are supporting the government in scapegoating their failures by demonising the community that the government are required to protect.

My conclusion is that you have allowed yourself to be recruited into this because you harbour extreme bigotry. A bigotry which you have never managed to justify with reasonable argument.

This is the bigotry that ended the life of Brianna Ghey.

Women are killed in horrific numbers in the UK, but for much different reasons - domestic disputes mostly, and according to sources, those arguments are so often about matters such as money and sharing chores.

To compare the murder rates of each group is a folly since the motivations are quire different.

 

[classic33]

There's not a country in the world that records crime where women are responsible for more than a very small percentage of sex crimes or murders. I've never said there aren't female murderers but you revelling in the fact that there is one doesn't make it a common occurance.

I'm not revelling in the taking of a life by another person, unlike yourself, who has gone to lengths to point out that women aren't murderers.
Now you're reversing that stance and admitting that women do murder. And quite often it's people they don't know/didn't know beforehand.

 

[icowden]

The requirement for being a trans woman is to have your gender identity recognised in law by the state as enacted by parliament.
A trans woman with a GRC is both female and a woman - that's the law.
You don't like the law, but that doesn't stop it from being the law.

You seem to be a bit inconsistent here - but do correct me if I am wrong.

I thought you had previously argued that the only requirement to be a woman was to declare that you were a woman. The GRC is a step to legalise that recognition but it's perfectly possible to be a transwoman (woman) without one.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible to be a transwoman without taking hormones, medication or having surgery.

Given that all of the above has been argued as true, it therefore follows that @AuroraSaab's point about possible violence from transwomen follows, on the whole, male patterns of offending.

Secondly, like it or not, I think @CXRAndy's point is quite a valid one. One of the reasons that "anti-trans" sentiment has grown is some of the more ludicrous stuff that has been done. For example, the issue that brought JK Rowling to tweet about use of the word "woman". Women like being called women as far as I am aware and not people who menstruate (for example). Similarly you get delusional stories about people taking offence when someone forgets to use the pronouns that they wanted someone to use.

There is also the internal squabble within the LGBTQRX+ community whereby homophobic attacks seem to have increased but somewhat triggered by the exclusionary protesting of the alphabet people vs the LGB people. (see recent post by James Dreyfuss on X).

Of course the ideal world scenario seems to be that deployed by Eddie Izzard who is now a transwoman called Suzy Izzard but only when it's convenient for work. No hormones or surgery being undertaken and no GRC applied for as far as I am aware. But she is doing a one woman version of Hamlet.

 

[monkers]

You seem to be a bit inconsistent here - but do correct me if I am wrong.

I thought you had previously argued that the only requirement to be a woman was to declare that you were a woman. The GRC is a step to legalise that recognition but it's perfectly possible to be a transwoman (woman) without one.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible to be a transwoman without taking hormones, medication or having surgery.

Given that all of the above has been argued as true, it therefore follows that @AuroraSaab's point about possible violence from transwomen follows, on the whole, male patterns of offending.

Secondly, like it or not, I think @CXRAndy's point is quite a valid one. One of the reasons that "anti-trans" sentiment has grown is some of the more ludicrous stuff that has been done. For example, the issue that brought JK Rowling to tweet about use of the word "woman". Women like being called women as far as I am aware and not people who menstruate (for example). Similarly you get delusional stories about people taking offence when someone forgets to use the pronouns that they wanted someone to use.

There is also the internal squabble within the LGBTQRX+ community whereby homophobic attacks seem to have increased but somewhat triggered by the exclusionary protesting of the alphabet people vs the LGB people. (see recent post by James Dreyfuss on X).

Your are not reflecting my views accurately.

I have said there is no diagnostic method of testing for gender identity. Just as there is no diagnostic test for a religious identity, a national identity. Identities of all kinds are expressed by individuals as self-knowledge.

By way of an imperfect analogy (they all are), take Northern Ireland. There were conflicting identities involving national identities accompanied by religious identities. This mix compounded people with strong senses of being British, Irish, EU citizens, a combination of these or none of these. When admixed with the various religious identities, there seemed no way forward. That was until the Good Friday Agreement (Belfast Agreement) put in place the regime of validating all identities using the European Convention on Human Rights.

The underlying message is that we don't have to fully understand or share other peoples beliefs, culture, or identities. Instead we need to each of us adopt the mindset to appreciate that we each have our rights and have to allow the space for each of us to flourish without impediment.

The current wedge issues are, asylum seekers because the government doesn't want the electorate to realise that so-called legal migration is at record levels; and trans people because the government doesn't want the electorate to realise that trans people are pushing back against the political choices made in the name of austerity. Trans people have become the people most neglected for healthcare. Trans activists have been called the 'trans taliban' by the press, but these are simply members of the trans community who have tried to hold the government to account - to keep to the promises of the GRA, or otherwise to introduce the changes recommended by select committees. They are not calling for changes that infringe on the human rights of others.

Asylum seekers and trans people are demonised by political figures for political gain.

There are legitimate concerns, such as the increase in the number of girls wishing to express a different gender identity. This needs urgent research, but I will anticipate that any research will be tainted by misinterpretation and just become political propaganda. We can form our own opinions (and I have some) but they are not to be trusted without data from thorough research.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We mustn't forget your lack of numeracy skills. I'm sure it's obvious to everyone else (maybe not CRXAndy) that to compare numbers of victims of one group to another they must be the same size or adjusted on a per head of capita basis.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...transgender-people-reported-england-and-wales

Yes and thus trans people are a very safe demographic in the UK, seeing as they are safer than women on a per capita basis. As the report doesn't define what a transgender hate crime is we have no idea whether this 11% increase is physical assaults or people alleging they have been misgendered.

Hate crime is rising. Propaganda is a feature. You gish gallop propaganda against trans people. You are part of the driving force behind this.
You can not justify this with the words, 'not required or prepared to be kind'. You are actively cruel to trans people - and every day at that.

Again, more overwrought nonsense. Why don't you be kind and stop asking for access to women's spaces, prisons, and sports?

Context and nuance are everything. You were unable to backup your claims when questioned.

The context was a discussion of the definition of 'woman' and your answer was 'So let's just let us women say, 'I am a woman'. Job done'.

Now you're saying you don't believe in self ID....

 

[Deleted member 159]

When the whole trans ideology is built on shifting sands, expect a inconsistent argument

 

[multitool]

One of the reasons that "anti-trans" sentiment has grown is some of the more ludicrous stuff that has been done. For example, the issue that brought JK Rowling to tweet about use of the word "woman". Women like being called women as far as I am aware and not people who menstruate (for example).

Have you heard anyone actually use these terms first hand?

No. Because nobody is. Where is does get used is highly contextual, for example health care for specifically biological female issues (eg cervical cancer) Where language might be chosen not to exclude already marginalised groups. And this choice of language is taken at no cost to anyone else.

But of course the first people to seize upon it are bigots, and peoole making money out of the anti-trans grift.

Similarly you get delusional stories about people taking offence when someone forgets to use the pronouns that they wanted someone to use.

Do you? Where are these "stories" (your inadvertently perspicacious choice of word) Ever witnessed one? Ever heard of one first hand?

There's a whole section of the media ready to promulgate these "stories" for clicks.

 

[monkers]

When the whole trans ideology is built on shifting sands, expect a inconsistent argument

Gender incongruence is not an ideology. Fascism is.

 

[monkers]

The context was a discussion of the definition of 'woman' and your answer was 'So let's just let us women say, 'I am a woman'. Job done'.

Now you're saying you don't believe in self ID....

''Kier Starmer doesn't even know what a woman is'' cries Sunak every PMQs session. No doubt you applaud him.

When you are asked to define 'what a woman is', you struggle. Somewhat sardonically I suggested (and continue to suggest) that if we women can not define what a woman is, then we can't police the term. Instead women who identify as a woman (not all do) should be free to say, I am a woman. ''Job done'' because otherwise the argument just results in ongoing bigotry and an unnecessary fight between groups of women.

Because that is what it is, it's a fight between women, not a battle between trans women and women. Trans activists do not want to take on women, their issue is with the government for neglect. These are human rights abuses. But you want the government to abuse them more.

''Self-Id'' is a meaningless term in the way you use the term. All Id is self-Id. Whether you prefer to say you are 'English' or 'British' is a matter of political or cultural choice, it's self-Id. There's no test for it.

If the government can not honour the promises of the GRA because as they now claim it is too expensive, then they should listen to the two all party select committees that they have commissioned to report to them.

It is not acceptable to prescribe hormone regimes to trans people without the follow up treatments in a timely fashion. It is a cruelty all of its own.

 

[Deleted member 121]

When the whole trans ideology is built on shifting sands, expect a inconsistent argument

Im having a lot of fun with this bot thing. I asked it to provide an analysis of your sentence. Here are the results that i would like to share with you.

"CXRAndy’s post is a simplistic and dismissive comment on a complex and sensitive issue. He seems to ignore the lived experiences and identities of trans people, and reduce them to an “ideology” that he does not agree with. He also implies that trans people are inconsistent and unreliable in their arguments, without providing any evidence or examples. His post does not contribute to a constructive or respectful discussion, but rather fuels the “anti-trans” sentiment that he mentions"

I mean, you are being replaced intellectual and functionally by a bot my friend, it has your number...

 

[AuroraSaab]

Where is does get used is highly contextual, for example health care for specifically biological female issues (eg cervical cancer) Where language might be chosen not to exclude already marginalised groups. And this choice of language is taken at no cost to anyone else.

That's your opinion. If you say 'People with a cervix need to get a smear test' that's more ambiguous and unclear than 'Women need to get a smear test'. The cost of not excluding marginalised groups - I assume you mean transwomen - does come at a cost.

"Language such 'lactating parent' instead of 'breastfeeding mothers' is dehumanising".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...en-top-researchers-argue-20220126-p59red.html

Apart from which erasing sex specific words is a step in removing women's ability to describe themselves accurately as a sex class with specific needs. If you say '3,000 people a year get cervical cancer' that's a very different ratio to '3,000 women a year get cervical cancer' and diminishes the scale of the problem.